Will Trump kill federal funding for public transportation? – Smart Cities Dive

Report on Proposed Elimination of Federal Mass Transit Funding and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A proposal is under consideration to eliminate the mass transit account of the Highway Trust Fund, a move that would also prohibit states from allocating federal highway funds to public transit projects. This policy shift, potentially effective October 1, 2026, poses a significant threat to state and local transportation budgets and directly contravenes several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to sustainable cities, inequality, climate action, and economic growth.

Proposed Policy Changes

The core of the proposal involves two primary actions to be included in the Surface Transportation Act reauthorization:

1. The complete elimination of the mass transit account within the federal Highway Trust Fund.
2. A prohibition on states using highway formula dollars for any public transit initiatives.

Proponents of the measure, such as Rep. Sam Graves, Chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, advocate for prioritizing federal spending on “traditional infrastructure, that’s roads and bridges,” over transit, bike paths, or walking paths.

Historical Context

The mass transit account was established as a component of the Highway Trust Fund in 1982 and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1983. Its creation was part of a legislative agreement to raise gasoline taxes, with the stated purpose of completing the interstate highway system while also helping cities meet their public transit needs. Historically, federal fuel tax increases were intended to be split on an 80-20 basis between the highway and mass transit accounts, respectively. Under the current Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the mass transit account receives 18.2% of the fund’s spending authority.

Impact on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The proposed funding cuts would have severe negative consequences for the advancement of key SDGs:

• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): The policy directly undermines Target 11.2, which calls for providing access to safe, affordable, accessible, and sustainable transport systems for all. Eliminating transit funding would cripple efforts to create inclusive and sustainable urban environments, likely leading to increased traffic congestion and pollution.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): Public transit is a critical service for low-income individuals, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. Cutting this funding would disproportionately harm these vulnerable populations, limiting their access to employment, healthcare, and education, thereby deepening existing inequalities.
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): The proposal threatens economic stability by jeopardizing the ability of millions of people to commute to work. Furthermore, it would impact job creation and support within the public transportation sector itself.
• SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure): This policy marks a regression from the development of resilient, sustainable, and integrated infrastructure. It favors a singular mode of transport (highways) over a multi-modal system that is essential for modern, efficient economies.
• SDG 13 (Climate Action): By promoting car dependency and disincentivizing public transportation, the proposal would lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. This runs contrary to national and global efforts to combat climate change.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Reduced transit options can limit access to essential healthcare services. An increase in personal vehicle use also contributes to poorer air quality and more sedentary lifestyles, negatively impacting public health.

Stakeholder Reactions and Concerns

The proposal has drawn significant criticism from a wide range of stakeholders:

• Transportation for America: Warned that the move “will annihilate state and local transportation budgets.”
• American Public Transportation Association (APTA): Stated the “reckless proposals would devastate Americans” by cutting off critical services that provide access to jobs, healthcare, and education.
• Clean Energy Advocates (Evergreen Action): Argued that the administration is attempting to “limit transportation options, increase car dependence, and force everyone onto the most expensive possible path.”
• Political Opposition: Rep. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, questioned the rationale behind the proposal, emphasizing that millions of people and most states rely on transit daily.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

  The article’s central theme is transportation infrastructure, specifically the funding mechanism for mass transit versus highways and bridges through the Highway Trust Fund. The proposal to eliminate the mass transit account directly impacts the development and maintenance of sustainable public infrastructure.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The potential funding cuts are described as devastating for “cities, suburbs, and rural communities.” The article highlights the role of mass transit in providing transportation options and access to essential services, which is a core component of creating sustainable and inclusive communities.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The article explicitly states that public transit provides “access to jobs” and that “Transit investments create and support jobs.” Cutting funding for these services could negatively impact employment and economic opportunities for people who rely on public transportation.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The importance of public transit for public health is mentioned through its role in providing “access to… health care.” Eliminating this transportation option could create barriers for individuals needing to reach medical services.

• SDG 13: Climate Action

  The article connects the proposed policy to environmental concerns. A clean energy advocate is quoted stating the move would “increase car dependence,” which runs counter to climate action goals that often promote public transit as a way to reduce transportation-related emissions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all.

  The article discusses the federal funding structure (Highway Trust Fund) for national transportation infrastructure. The debate over eliminating the mass transit account is a direct conflict over what constitutes “quality, reliable, sustainable” infrastructure and how to ensure “equitable access for all,” as the article notes transit serves cities, suburbs, and rural areas.

• Target 11.2: By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons.

  This target is directly addressed. The proposal to “eliminate the mass transit account” would fundamentally undermine the goal of expanding public transport. The article quotes Paul Skoutelas, who warns the move would cut off “critical transit services that provide access to jobs, health care, and education,” thereby threatening access to sustainable transport for all Americans.

• Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value.

  The article connects transit funding to employment by stating that transit provides “access to jobs” and that “Transit investments create and support jobs.” Cutting this funding could hinder progress towards this target by making it harder for people to get to work and by reducing job creation in the transit sector.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator for Target 9.1: Investment in Infrastructure

  The article provides a specific financial indicator used to measure investment in transit infrastructure. It states that “under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, mass transit has received 18.2% of the highway fund’s spending authority.” This percentage serves as a direct, quantifiable measure of financial commitment to sustainable transport infrastructure. The proposal to eliminate this funding entirely represents a clear negative change in this indicator.

• Indicator for Target 11.2: Proportion of population that has convenient access to public transport.

  While the article does not provide a specific number for this indicator (11.2.1), it strongly implies its relevance. The statement that the cuts would “devastate Americans in cities, suburbs, and rural communities” and cut off “critical transit services” directly relates to the measurement of population access to public transport. The success or failure of the proposed policy could be measured by the resulting change in the number of people with convenient access to transit.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: smartcitiesdive.com