The House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee introduced the BUILD America 250 Act on Sunday, marking the first glimpse into the negotiations surrounding surface transportation reauthorization. This comprehensive 1,005-page document is pivotal to federal transportation policy, determining whether investment will continue in a car-centric system or move towards more sustainable and affordable transport options.
Unfortunately, the proposal by committee leaders Rep. Graves and Rep. Larsen fails to redirect our transportation system from being the largest emitter of heat-trapping emissions and the second-largest household expense. Below are the highlights:
- Over its 5-year span, the act boosts highway funding by 8% (+$28 billion), while reducing transit and rail funding by 20% (-$43 billion) compared to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL).
- Key programs supporting electric vehicles, disaster resilience, and bike and pedestrian infrastructure are cut. Proposals like a new transit operations program or a maintenance-before-expansion requirement are absent.
- An additional fee is proposed for electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, on top of existing state and local fees, despite evidence that it won’t sufficiently address the Highway Trust Fund’s deficit. Meanwhile, heavy-duty trucks, responsible for over 90% of road damage, will continue to pay less than their fair share.
This proposal is the initial step in what is typically a protracted process to finalize the nation’s surface transportation deal. Starting with the BUILD America 250 Act raises concerns, so let’s examine it further.
The devil is in the bureaucratic funding mechanism details
The BUILD America 250 Act seems tailored to highway contractors. Despite concerns about Highway Trust Fund insolvency, the bill calls for increased highway funding. It allocates $11 billion for bridges, cutting into transit and rail funding. Instead of innovative programs like Reconnecting Communities grants, it includes $750 million for a Truck Parking program, a priority for the highway lobby’s American Trucking Associations. Despite these allocations, the total program amount of $583 billion falls short of the highway lobby’s requests when adjusted for inflation, sparking debates for more funds.
Funding mechanisms further complicate the situation. Federal transportation dollars vary in security. Some programs benefit from contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund, offering secure funding for large projects. Others rely on appropriations from the General Fund, requiring annual budget negotiations that often result in reduced funding, as seen with the Active Transportation Investment and Infrastructure Program (ATIIP). Meanwhile, the BIL utilized advance appropriations, providing a guarantee akin to contract authority for $184 billion in programs favoring diverse transportation options and climate-friendly investments.
The current proposal eliminates advance appropriations, severely affecting rail funding. Previously, rail received $66 billion in advance appropriations and $36 billion authorized but subject to appropriations under the BIL. Now, it’s entirely dependent on $65 billion subject to appropriations. Transit faces a similar predicament, having received $21 billion in advance funds under the BIL for capital investments, but receiving none in this bill. Despite being more than a complete federal transit funding cut, the bill suggests a 5% reduction in transit funding, exacerbated by inflationary cost increases since the BIL’s 2021 enactment.
Excluding funding subject to appropriations (leaving $475 billion total), the picture becomes clearer. Highways gain a 7% (+$26 billion) increase in secure funding, while transit and rail lose 45% (-$71 billion) of their guaranteed funding. Overall, the split is 81/19 in favor of secure funding, a stark contrast to the BIL’s 70/30 split.
These reductions come from cutting successful BIL programs that should have been expanded:
- Carbon Reduction Program: fully repealed (-$6 billion compared to BIL)
- Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-Saving Transportation (PROTECT) Grants: formula program cut, with some eligibilities added to the Surface Transportation Block Grant (-$6.2 billion, -71%)
- National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program and the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Program: reduced (-$5 billion and -$2.5 billion, respectively), with a +$1 billion set-aside in the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program.
- Neighborhood Access and Equity Program/Reconnecting Communities: cut, except for eligibility in the new consolidated Surface Transportation Accelerator Grant Program (-$1 billion)
- Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program (ATIIP): entirely cut (-$1 billion)
- Healthy Streets Program: fully repealed (-$400 million)
- Reduction of Truck Emissions at Port Facilities: fully repealed (-$400 million)
The BIL had enabled these programs to drive change nationwide, but the BUILD America 250 Act’s funding threatens that progress. In contrast, the bill introduces a new $130 annual registration fee for electric vehicles and $35 for plug-in hybrids, which will increase over time. These fees discourage the adoption of lower-emission vehicles while making minimal impact on the federal transportation funding gap.
Mixed results on holding agencies accountable
In a year marked by cancelled, delayed, and otherwise disrupted federal grants, pressure has increased from the public and legislators for Congress to ensure the administration carries out passed laws. Some, like Sen. Whitehouse, a key negotiator on the Senate side, have insisted that the administration’s funding cuts and project cancellations must be addressed to continue negotiations.
The BUILD America 250 Act includes a minor safeguard (Sec. 1101(f)) to prevent the administration from terminating, withholding, or delaying a grant agreement based on non-statutory goals or agency priorities. However, its effectiveness is uncertain given the administration’s various methods of slowing down beneficial projects.
On the state level, a new dynamic emerges with the Consolidated State Block Grant program in the transit title (Sec. 3006) and the Consolidated Funding Pilot program in the highways title (Sec. 1128). Both are optional, allowing states to consolidate funds from multiple programs into a single pot and allocate it according to their preferences. Essentially, this fulfills the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) desire for more discretion and less accountability in transportation fund usage. There is concern that states might divert remaining funds away from affordable and sustainable transportation options.
Regarding other accountability measures, each new mile of roadway incurs a $47,300 annual maintenance cost (per lane), adding to an existing $216 billion backlog over five years. However, there are no mandates for state departments of transportation to prioritize maintenance over expansion (also known as fix-it-first). This could lead to increased costs and travel delays for both transit riders and drivers due to deteriorating road conditions. Finally, legislators missed an opportunity to make transportation planning at metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) more representative of the populations they serve, a crucial step the UCS recommends for a democratic transportation system.
We need to BUILD something different
The core issue with the BUILD America 250 Act is that it entrenches a focus on roadways while neglecting essential sustainable and affordable transportation alternatives. This approach risks trapping people in an expensive, car-dependent system and handing billions to the highway lobby for new roads without ensuring the maintenance of existing infrastructure. With diminished support for transit and infrastructure for bicycles and pedestrians, the nation could end up spending more money and continuing to pollute to meet transportation needs.
This is merely the initial draft, and the UCS will continue to track its progress as the bill evolves. As the country’s 250th anniversary approaches, a critical decision looms: remain in a fossil-fueled, car-centered past, or move towards a future that is affordable, sustainable, and just?
CORRECTION -5/20/26- We have updated a previous version of this blog to reflect revised funding interpretations, updated figures, and minor typographical corrections.
