Word on the STReet: What Folks Are Saying About Transportation Policy

The United States stands at a crucial juncture in transportation policy. The next surface transportation reauthorization (STR) by Congress faces a pivotal choice: continue with a car-centric, costly, and unsustainable system, or embrace innovative, people-focused, and science-driven affordable transportation solutions.

As Congress unveils the results of its closed-door discussions and public bill markups begin, it is essential to recognize the diverse voices influencing this debate. In July 2025, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) invited public comments on a proposal to advance the nation’s core infrastructure needs. While the administration’s response is not anticipated, examining these comments reveals the ideas and challenges at play.

Advocating for a People-Focused and Science-Based Transportation System

Research by the UCS has highlighted that offering varied transportation options, such as walking, biking, and public transit, is integral to a sustainable, prosperous, and equitable future. Reduced reliance on driving could yield $201 billion in energy infrastructure savings and cut public health costs by $128 billion, potentially saving U.S. households nearly $6 trillion in vehicle ownership costs by 2050. These benefits extend beyond finances, fostering economic growth and reducing social isolation.

In light of this, UCS proposes science-backed policy recommendations for Congress. These include expanding federal transit programs, prioritizing the maintenance of existing roadways, promoting vehicle electrification, and ensuring proportional representation in transportation planning agencies. UCS’s complete priorities can be found here.

UCS is not alone in this effort. Numerous partner organizations advocate for enhanced transportation options, including:

• Community groups and coalitions like Move LA, Transit Forward Philadelphia, Our Streets (Minnesota), Missourians for Responsible Transportation, and MOVE Ohio, as well as bicycle advocacy groups like Boise Bicycle Project and League of American Bicyclists, emphasize the need for safe biking and pedestrian infrastructure.
• Environmental organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, GreenLatinos, and CHARGE coalition highlight the importance of diverse transportation options for environmental sustainability and vibrant communities.
• Business entities like the Greater Washington Partnership and Real Estate Board of NY recognize that “high-quality, frequent transit strengthens our regional economy by efficiently connecting people to jobs, education, and healthcare.”
• Labor unions, including the Transport Workers Union and Amalgamated Transit Union, understand the creation of high-quality jobs and the support transit provides nationwide.
• Disability and aging advocacy groups like the American Federation for the Blind and Maine Council on Aging stress the critical role of transit in enabling access to essential services for nondrivers.
• Experts from the American Planning Association and American Society for Landscape Architects advocate for investments in integrated mobility networks, prioritizing transit, biking, and walking over vehicle throughput.
• Various community organizations like Genesis Interfaith Organizing and health groups such as Together for Brothers recognize the necessity of freedom to move within their communities.

These groups represent a wide spectrum of Americans, both rural and urban, yet their voices are not alone in this conversation…

The Role of Public Agencies: Essential but Incomplete

Transportation policy can often be shrouded in complex, technical language, leading legislators to rely on public agencies—state departments of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, and transit agencies—for expert advice. Ideally, this would epitomize evidence-based policy-making, but history suggests otherwise.

Steven Higashide notes that many interstate highways were constructed through neighborhoods that planners, engineers, and politicians undervalued, displacing over 475,000 households and a million people, according to USDOT estimates. These decisions sometimes stemmed from explicitly racist motives, as seen with I-65’s rerouting through a historic Black neighborhood in Montgomery, Alabama.

Learning from past mistakes, it is vital to prioritize community needs for diverse transportation options. However, some state departments of transportation, like those in Florida and Texas, openly resist social equity measures and prioritize highway funding. While others, represented by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), advocate for funding transit and other modes, they often obscure the disproportionate funding favoring highways, perpetuating an unsustainable status quo.

Local and regional transportation organizations offer a glimmer of hope. The Local Officials in Transportation coalition, comprising thousands of local governments and planning organizations, seeks more direct control of federal funds, often at odds with state DOTs’ project control. While promising, these efforts depend on transparent, community-prioritized processes that are often susceptible to political influence and lack representative boards.

Transit agencies, from major entities like the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority to smaller ones represented by the Community Transportation Association of America, align closely with community needs. They highlight the necessity of transit investment, particularly amid looming fiscal cliffs. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) emphasizes the significant economic returns on transit investments. However, accepting the “80-20 split,” where 80% of federal transportation funds are allocated to highways and 20% to public transit, leaves transit agencies at a disadvantage.

Public agencies play a crucial role in maintaining community connectivity, yet they often struggle to champion a forward-thinking vision, hindered by traditional practices.

Industry Lobbying as an Obstacle

Industries that receive over 75% of transportation spending, such as the auto, oil, roadbuilding, and trucking sectors, have long lobbied to maintain a fossil-fueled, car-dependent status quo. Organizations like the American Road and Transport Builders Association (ARTBA) and the American Trucking Associations (ATA) have historically lobbied Congress, contributed to political campaigns, and supported outdated scientific research.

Currently, these groups are actively pushing for more highway funding. Some, like ATA and the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA), advocate for eliminating the federal excise tax on heavy-duty trucks, which accounts for nearly 40% of trucks’ financial contributions to the transportation system. Despite causing over 90% of roadway damage, they seek to shift the financial burden onto taxpayers.

Numerous industry groups form an “infrastructure consensus,” advocating for increased funding for the status quo and deregulation to facilitate construction. Though infrastructure is a public good and a critical long-term investment, not all projects hold equal value. Highways have a history of progress and pain, with negative impacts on businesses, segregation, inequality, and significant health and climate repercussions. Economists now acknowledge a diminishing return on highway investments.

While recognizing the chronic disinvestment in transit, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) argues for additional federal funding to ensure safe, reliable transit services. However, their recommendation of $1 trillion for roads and bridges compared to just $152 billion for transit reveals their underlying priorities.

The reality is the U.S. transportation system is faltering. Transportation ranks as the second-highest household expense and contributes more heat-trapping emissions than some of the world’s largest countries. The auto, oil, roadbuilding, and trucking industries continue to push for more of the same, investing millions in lobbying and political campaigns.

Public Support for Diverse Transportation Options

The majority of public comments to USDOT, totaling over a thousand individuals, advocate for increased transportation choices. This sentiment is shared across political affiliations. More than 80% of car users report having no alternative to driving, and nearly four times as many voters support boosting public transportation funding rather than cutting it.

These comments cover a broad spectrum of concerns, from tragic stories of loved ones lost in traffic incidents to the health benefits of biking. Individuals identify as Democrats and Republicans while highlighting the fiscal advantages of multimodal transportation. Some notable comments include:

• “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.”

A Call to Embrace New Ideas

The alignment between scientific evidence and public sentiment is clear. Together, we can advocate for federal transportation policies that better serve our communities. Whether you’re a congressional staffer or a concerned citizen, join us in striving for a cleaner, more prosperous, and equitable transportation future by visiting our initiative.