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: Should We Stop Calling Them ‘Low-Traffic Neighborhoods’?

Is it time for London's game-changing urban design concept to get a rebrand?

January 30, 2026

Friday’s Headlines Yearn to Breathe Free

While EVs aren't the be-all end-all, especially when it comes to traffic safety, they do make the air cleaner. Most of the U.S. is falling behind on their adoption, though.

January 30, 2026

Talking Headways Podcast: One Year of Congestion Pricing

Danny Pearlstein of New York City's Riders Alliance breaks down how advocates made congestion pricing happen in the Big Apple.

January 29, 2026

Improving Road Safety Is A Win For The Climate, Too

Closing the notorious "fatality target" loophole wouldn't just save lives — it'd help save the human species from climate catastrophe, too.

January 29, 2026

Delivery Workers Are the Safest Cyclists On the Road, Study Finds

Deliveristas are less likely to engage in roadway behaviors that endanger pedestrians or themselves. So why are they so villainized?

January 29, 2026

The Cup Runneth Over With Thursday’s Headlines

Density lends itself to an abundance of transportation options and an abundance of money saved by not driving, writes David Zipper.

January 29, 2026
See all posts