On Wednesday, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit held a hearing, titled “America Builds: A Review of Our Nation’s Transit Policies and Programs.” 

The subcommittee invited four witnesses to testify: 

• Nathaniel P. Ford Sr., Chief Executive Officer, Jacksonville Transportation Authority; on behalf of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA)  

• Barbara K. Cline, Executive Director, Prairie Hills Transit; on behalf of the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA)  

• Matthew Booterbaugh, Chief Executive Officer, RATP Dev USA; on behalf of the North American Transit Alliance (NATA) 

• Baruch Feigenbaum, Senior Managing Director of Transportation Policy, Reason Foundation  

• Greg Regan, President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO 

Subcommittee Chair’s Remarks 

In his opening remarks, Chairman David Rouzer (R-NC), talked about the benefits of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding — moving people safely and connecting them with workplaces, airports, doctors’ appointments, and more. He said, “from buses and street cars to ferries and rail systems, transit systems connect our communities and have the potential to drive greater economic opportunities, especially in rural areas.”  

However, he said, “Congress must work to hold recipients of federal dollars accountable and ensure that public transportation services are reliable, safe, and maintained to a certain standard.” He noted that nearly $180 billion in federal funds has been directed to public transportation systems since 2020 from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and supplemental COVID funding. “Despite this significant investment,” he said, “ridership today hovers around 79 percent of pre-pandemic levels. Concerningly, crime has become more rampant on several transit systems, endangering passengers and transit workers alike.”  

He argued, “We can no longer afford to throw money at issues and hope to see change, and this includes public transportation systems. We have an opportunity in the next surface bill to ensure that public transportation systems have the flexibilities they need to deliver high quality services.” 

Transit Advocates Want More Funding 

Nat Ford, the former chair of APTA, recommended that the next surface transportation authorization bill use IIJA transit and rail funding as a baseline to build from, recognizing increased costs due to inflation. He emphasized the need to upgrade old facilities and equipment, pointing to a transit industry state-of-good-repair backlog of more than $101 billion. He noted that almost one in six transit buses and vans in the U.S. are not in a state of good repair, and the average rail transit vehicle is 24 years old.  

(Full disclosure: Nat Ford is a frequent contributor to Eno Center programs, and his wife, Jannet Walker-Ford, is a member of the Eno Center’s Board of Directors.) 

Greg Stanton (D-AZ) explained why he strongly supports providing federal funds for buses, bus rapid transit, light rail, streetcar systems, autonomous vehicles, microtransit, bikeability, and, walkability: “I’m the former mayor of Phoenix and I know all too well how important it is for the federal government to be a strong partner.” He said smart public transit investment has been a catalyst for economic development in Phoenix with people and employers moving to be near the “action and energy” along the new light rail lines. 

Advocates for Private Contracting 

Matthew Booterbaugh represented NATA, an organization established to advocate for the private contracting of transit services. (See Eno’s recent report about private contracting). 

 As the subcommittee begins the process of reauthorizing the public transportation program, Booterbaugh urged Congress to “continue to invest in public transportation as it is the only transportation option for many people and relieves traffic congestion on our roadways. Public transportation also enhances economic development by providing access to jobs for employees.” He recommended that the reauthorization law should require transit agencies to consider, on a regular basis, whether to contract out all or a portion of their services. 

Autonomous Vehicles and Transit 

Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA), who represents a district east of San Francisco, referred to the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) as “probably the worst public agency in the U.S.” He called the system “a total disaster” and “very unsafe.” He also described it as unreliable and old, with an unpleasant passenger experience. 

(Ed. Note: “Old” is in the eye of the beholder. Yes, BART opened 52 years ago. But the central part of the MBTA Green Line, in Boston, opened 127 years ago and still carries 100,000 people per day.  Once you’ve taken the time to dig an underground urban tunnel, you keep using it, forever – you just keep updating and upgrading the systems that operate in the tunnel.)

Then, Kiley referred to the stark juxtaposition between BART and Waymo, which operates autonomous vehicles in San Francisco. He considers Waymo’s ride-hailing service to be the future of urban travel, as it provides seamless, point-to-point, reliable travel.  

Kiley and Ford agreed that autonomous vehicles can complement transit services because they can bring people to and from transit stops. As head of Jacksonville’s transit agency, Ford is introducing autonomous transit vehicles along three miles of mixed traffic in curbside lanes through the city’s urban core.  

Outrage Over Administration’s Actions 

Congressman Chuy Garcia (D-CA) expressed his outrage that the administration is seeking to kill projects already selected to receive funding from the bipartisan infrastructure law but which have not reached the “signed project agreement” stage, singling out projects that mention certain terms such as green, bike infrastructure, equity, and climate change.  

Garcia said, “Some unobligated projects with these words would be subjected to an additional layer of review according to recent DOT memos. What message are we saying to state and local partners about the federal government’s ability to keep its funding promises? What precedent does this set? We’re talking about safety projects. Protected bike lanes connect people to bus and rail lines. Streetscape improvements enhance pedestrian safety and incentivize the use of public transit. Billions of dollars are at risk.” In response, the AFL-CIO’s Greg Reagan said that it is important to remember that these projects were identified by local leaders who understand the needs of their communities. 

Safety Was Top of Mind 

Safety and crime were topics raised by numerous members of Congress and the witnesses who testified. 

Regan said, “While we’ve made significant investments in physical assets, we have systematically neglected the most essential component of any transit system: the workers who make it function.” He said frontline professionals face an unprecedented convergence of threats: physical assaults, destabilizing fiscal cliffs that threaten service reliability, a technological revolution being deployed without adequate safety frameworks, and an administration openly hostile to their right to organize.” 

Regan applauded the IIJA’s requirement that transit agencies report all assaults, not just ones that resulted in a fatality or an ambulance transport. He urged the subcommittee to mandate minimum vehicle design safety standards for transit vehicles, and provide operating funds that can be used for policing, monitoring security cameras, and transit ambassadors. He also argued “The deployment of automated vehicle technology in public transportation—absent a clear, enforceable federal framework—poses a significant risk not only to public safety but to the workforce that keeps our transit systems running.” 

Tony Wied (R-WI) acknowledged that public transit is vital for those who have no other means to travel, but he argued the federal government cannot continue to mindlessly throw money at public transit systems and hope they’ll become successful and self-sustaining. He argued that it is time to reexamine our approach, and he pointed to fare evasion as a problem across the country, and crime deterring people from using transit. 

Jerry Nadler (D-NY) noted that New York City subway crime is at its lowest level in nearly 30 years, thanks to federal investments in cameras, operator barriers, safety teams, and training.  

He argued, “When Secretary Duffy threatens to withhold funding, he’s not improving safety, he’s undermining it. Instead of making threats, the federal government should increase funding for public transit, and give agencies added flexibility to better use that funding to keep riders and workers safe.” 

Laura Gillen (D-NY) said transit is ten times safer per mile than traveling in a car. She pointed to a “five-alarm fire” on Long Island, where a serious traffic accident occurs every seven minutes. She said more investments in transit will help increase overall safety, and make transit travel more frequent and reliable.  

Rural vs. Urban Divide 

Rick Crawford (R-AR) revealed that one of the “biggest issues we wrestle with in this body across committees” is the rural vs. urban divide. He noted how large transit systems received 53.6 percent of Covid emergency funding while, “my communities are scraping the bottom of the barrel for what’s left. These large metropolitan transportation authorities are taking advantage of the system and leaving rural communities to fend for themselves.” 

Barbara Cline from CTAA talked about the need for more funding and flexibility in its use. She noted that aging facilities and fleets are a major concern at small rural transit agencies. She emphasized how continued and adequate support of the rural transit formula programs (Sections 5310 and 5311 of title 49, U.S.C.) is essential. She also recommended set-asides for smaller transit agencies within transit discretionary programs.  

Cline noted that “the best decisions about the types of buses deployed in communities are made at the local level by agency directors, their boards, and local officials. Dedicated bus capital funds are vital to CTAA’s members, but these important investments must be flexible to allow systems to buy the right rolling stock for their operations and not force them into technologies that don’t work for them.” 

Dave Taylor (R-OH) said while some of his rural constituents rely on public transportation to get to work, medical appointments, and visit family — very few of them do so. He said he supports US DOT Secretary Sean Duffy’s effort to ensure federal funds are used efficiently, and he wants urban transit agencies to be run more like a business. 

Opportunity for Bipartisanship 

Laura Friedman (D-CA) said one reason she was excited to get on the subcommittee was “because it’s a place I do believe we can work across the aisle on issues that are important to the American people.” She said she heard several things at the hearing from her Republican colleagues that she completely agreed with, such as the problems associated with aging infrastructure. Friedman noted how the American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave transit a “D” grade in its 2025 infrastructure Report Card. She argued, “We need to bring our transit grade way up. The way to do that is to increase our investments in transit. It’s as simple as that.” She also agreed with her Republican colleagues about permitting, as she pointed to her accomplishment streamlining the permitting process for transit projects, when she served as chair of California’s state assembly transportation committee. 

Cline also talked about reducing regulations. She said at small transit systems, administrative employees perform a variety of job functions and it is not unusual for the general manager to drive a bus when short-staffed. “At the same time,” she noted, “much of the regulatory and data collection efforts promulgated by both Congress and the FTA are designed for the nation’s largest transit operators that have the requisite-sized administrative staffs to manage these requirements.”  

Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ), one of only 13 Republican members of the House of Representatives to vote for the IIJA, said, “The vast majority of members of Congress and the public support public transportation.” 

Van Drew referred to some major challenges besides money, including fare revenues that have not fully recovered and crime that is up “in some cases.” He blamed the federal government for not distributing federal funds fast enough, and for having confusing processes and weak oversight. He said, “That’s why the upcoming reauthorization must focus on smarter investments, faster delivery, stronger oversight, and real accountability.” He added, “Local agencies are stuck navigating vague guidance, red tape, and shifting timelines that cause delays and increase costs. It leaves communities waiting and waiting and waiting.”