Election Day 2024 set the stage for transportation in 2025. We saw both a consequential federal election and a host of successful transportation ballot measures at the state and local levels.
Guest Beth Osborne, Director of Transportation for America, Katherine García, Director of the Sierra Club’s Clean Transportation for All Campaign, and Hana Creger, Associate Director of Climate Equity with the Greenlining Institute shared their observations on 2025.
Beth started by summarizing 2024. While there was much to be excited about regarding new programs in the bipartisan infrastructure law, including record funding for new transit, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) was mostly a status quo bill in how money for roads is allocated.
And the status quo is bad for climate! Formula programs, the money sent directly to states to spend as they please, generated far more in climate emissions than reductions that came from federal discretionary spending.
A state by state analysis shows that the better and worse states on climate does not necessarily turn on political partisanship. It depends more on whether a state spends on highway expansion as opposed to maintenance or safety.
The next transportation reauthorization is scheduled for 2026, and status quo defenders are already putting together their wish lists for reauthorization. A big wrinkle is that the highway trust fund is not sustained by the gas tax, so lawmakers will either need to cut spending or find other tax sources. Beth anticipates that there will be proposals to change transit from getting guaranteed funding like highways to needing to fight for annual appropriations. Discretionary grant programs under the new administration will fund different winners. And it is likely that USDOT safer vehicle regulations could be curbed or shelved.
Katherine Garcia spoke about how the Sierra Club anticipates working over the next four years. As a grassroots organization with 64 chapters across the country, they will focus more on what can be accomplished at the state and local levels. The Sierra Club is also pivoting to work more on “Urban Infill.” Another initiative is their Transit to Trails Program.
Katherine noted successes in Maryland, Minnesota and New York on climate, new rail service and congestion pricing – all examples of the opportunities for state-level wins.
Hana Creger shared Greenlining’s approach to advocacy. Their focus is on working towards a future where communities of color can build wealth, live in healthy places filled with economic opportunity, and are ready to meet the challenges posed by climate change.
They support 24 community based organizations across California, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina and Colorado. They intend to double down on local advocacy working in coalition with local partners. While the federal government shares significant amounts of money with states, the states themselves raise more money and have much more decision making authority.
While people think of California as a progressive state, the reality is that California has over 200 highway expansion projects. Their state advocacy has several goals. First is on transparency – reporting the climate, equity, safety and economic impact of transportation projects. Next is pursuing litigation to stop highway expansion. The ultimate goal is to shift funding from highway expansion to community safety and equity. One new bill proposal is to ban highway expansion projects if it displaces homes or businesses.
Hana noted that their California work is tied more and more to a growing national movement. (See for example our Communities over Highways Call to Action signed by over 200 advocacy organizations nationwide).
During the Q and A, Beth pointed out that most power lies with the states, and that has been the choice of both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Indeed, the BIL was passed with Democrats controlling both houses of Congress and the White House.
The success of local transportation ballot measures demonstrates the public support for walking, biking and transit. Sharing those results with decision makers can help shift their attitudes about what the public really wants.
The speakers also noted that while their presentations focused on climate, messaging on safety, costs, and access to jobs and opportunities can cut across partisan boundaries.
