Skip to Content
Streetsblog USA home
Streetsblog USA home
Log In
Around the Block

The GOP Case for Cutting Federal Transit Funding Isn’t Principled — It’s Tribalism

Texas widened I-10 in Houston to cram more car commuters onto the highway system, not to facilitate national trade. Photo: Socreate76 via Creative Commons

With Republicans controlling Washington, the Heritage Foundation's dream of slashing federal funds for transit, but not highways, is dangerously close to becoming real policy. Trump's budget outline [PDF] calls for a system in which the feds don't pay for transit expansion and instead "transit projects would be funded by the localities that use and benefit from these localized projects." Meanwhile, the federal government would continue to cover at least 80 percent of the cost of many highway expansions.

The insistence that transit is a local priority while highways are a national concern has become an article of faith in the world of right-wing think tanks. But today highway spending mostly serves the same type of trips that Republicans purportedly believe are inappropriate for federal funding, writes Jeff Wood at The Overhead Wire:

The only thing that is truly national in scope are the parts of the highway system that are outside of major cities where trucks conduct interstate commerce. The majority of traffic in cities are not trucks just passing through. It's traffic for regional trips. Houston's I-10 is now 26 lanes west of the 610 loop, those were created for the Louisiana to New Mexico traffic right?

But aren't most transit trips commute trips as well? And isn't interstate commerce done by train on tracks freight rail companies own and pay property taxes on? Should trucking companies be paying for the roads the operate on or do we see them as a public good?

We can flip this back and forth and argue what is "national in scope" all day I'm sure. The point is that it's often based on ideology and what is virtuous in the eye of the person doing the analysis. In a true libertarian world they'd have a user fee on everything. But I'm not sure how that works on local streets or things we want to incentivize like say, using more compact transportation modes for traveling into a dense city center because that's where economic activity happens due to agglomeration effects.

More recommended reading today: The Urbanist considers the failure of Seattle's bike-share, Pronto, which was shut down last week. And Smart Growth America says that contrary to the spin from national media, cell phones are not what's causing the spike in pedestrian deaths around the U.S.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog USA

Friday Video: Guess Which Argument Can Get a NIMBY To Change Their Mind About New Housing

Put your instincts to the test with this fascinating experiment about the power of messaging to win support for urbanism.

March 20, 2026

Friday’s Headlines Took the Road Less Traveled By

And that has made all the difference, when it comes to preventing traffic deaths.

March 20, 2026

Study: How Ambiguous Definition of ‘Major Transit Stop’ Creates Wiggle Room for Municipalities

This is a story of how well-intentioned efforts by the state to tie new development to transit hinge on how local governments (with their own incentives) interpret broad state law.

March 19, 2026

Talking Headways Podcast: Growing St. Louis’s Arts and Culture District

This week on Talking Headways, step inside St. Louis's Grand Center Arts District with the people who make it happen.

March 19, 2026

Advocates Get D.C. Mayor To Release Buried Report On The Potential Benefits Of Congestion Pricing

How many other conversations about congestion pricing across the country are being suppressed — and how many have never even gotten started?

March 19, 2026
See all posts