November 2024 Election Prospects: Same Uncertain Route As Ever

Even with Kamala Harris’s late replacement of Joe Biden, the 2024 presidential election is largely a tossup, and thus, the risks to the incumbent administration’s bid to continue its historic support for public transportation are very high.

Dissatisfaction with some of Biden-Harris administration policies — most notably how they have been tied to the spike in inflation — leaves its impressive public transportation legacy vulnerable to reversal.

This article will compare the records and future policy positions of the two primary contenders for the presidency this November.

Much is at stake, not only for federal programs that fund public transport, but as we will also see, how other policies each candidate will pursue in a Harris administration, which could have future implications for continued industry growth.

While this was to be the first rematch of presidential candidates since 1956, and the first involving a former and sitting president since 1892, stark differences on public transportation policy between the updated list of contenders remains the same.

There has always been a skepticism of the federal role in public transportation even well past the programs’ founding in 1964. What seems to be new is the potential for historic retrograde on policy should former president Donald Trump win this time.

Trump Camp’s New Stance on Transit

Although Trump has been perceived by many voters as a builder and promoter of infrastructure investments, the results of his term in office was at best mixed.

For example, though, he repeatedly touted “infrastructure week” events and had proposed an interesting strategy relying primarily on public-private partnerships and investment bank ideas embraced by both sides of the political aisle, virtually none of these ideas ever appeared in legislation he signed.

A putative second term, however, would appear to be a far different vision.

One needs to look no further than the inner circle of his advisors, who were the most conservative in his administration and who are fellows and staff members of the most extreme think tanks and media outlets on the right of the ideological spectrum.

A stark illustration is Project 2025, an agenda for radical transformation of the federal government begun in April 2023 by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative D.C. think tank that has become even more extremist in recent years.

The Project’s most noteworthy publication is titled Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise.

Chapter 19 of that document describes a significantly reduced role of the federal government in transportation policy, which has also been perceived by most transportation policy analysts as a radical roadmap to undermine or even abolish more than 80 years of federal transit policy.

It would have far-reaching implications for local transportation systems, programs, and projects throughout the nation, with potentially disastrous implications for the tens of millions of Americans who rely on public transportation either as riders or as workers for the industry’s public and private organizations.

For example, this chapter, which was written by conservative economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth, proposes to gut Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding, particularly by eliminating the existing formula and capital grant programs.

In Fiscal Year 2024, for example, the FTA provided local transit agencies with more than $14 billion in formula funding. She proposes to eliminate this funding because continuing to do so would be “throwing good money after bad.”

The Project 2025 blueprint also proposes to zero out funding for the FTA’s Capital Investment Grants (CIG) Program begun under Ronald Reagan.

Although Dr. Furchtgott-Roth notes the Trump Administration, at times, urged Congress to eliminate CIG grants, that administration kept the CIG program in place, even increasing funding in every year.

If the program does stick around in a second Trump term, she recommends Congress enact a “rigorous cost-benefit analysis” but never provides details as to how tougher the FTA’s existing review process should be.

Industry Impact Would be Massive

To illustrate the impact of these proposals, take the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) in New York as an example.

The largest public transportation network in the country, the MTA includes several operating bus, heavy rail, and commuter rail agencies, which serve a region of 15 million residents.

The MTA’s most recent annual report says these agencies provide 3.8 million subway, 1.3 million bus, and 435,000 commuter rail weekday boardings — roughly one-third of the national total. The agency also is an economic engine in a region basically built around the system.

The MTA’s annual report further notes the agency received a combined $2.1 billion in 2023 from the FTA’s formula programs and $7.4 billion in CIG grants, comprising 19% of its capital program from Fiscal Years 2020 to 2024.

Should a second Trump administration actually succeed in these plans, New York, and virtually every other transit agency in America, would have to defer or even suspend maintenance; substantially cut service at a time when the nation’s systems are just getting close (79% overall) to pre-pandemic ridership levels; or begin a vicious spiral of combined fare increases and service cuts to close the funding gaps.

This is also at a time when many cities are preparing to host the soccer World Cup in 2026 and help Los Angeles host the Summer Olympics and Paralympic Games in 2028.

The FTA’s full funding grant agreements just with New York, comprising $7.4 billion for the Hudson River tunnel projects, which will also improve Amtrak intercity and NJ Transit commuter service, and $3.4 billion for the extension of the Second Avenue Subway, would be under threat with this proposal.

Other current full funding agreements, including two heavy rail segments in Los Angeles and light rail projects in Seattle and Minneapolis, require $3.5 billion to meet the federal full funding commitments are also threatened.

Also likely to be on the chopping block with such a proposal are projects expecting to receive small starts and full funding agreements this year and next.

In sum, current and future federal commitments being sought for rail, bus rapid transit, new and modernized bus facilities, and low- and zero-emission bus transit programs will likely not happen. This federal “pipeline” for projects that will be seeking future federal funding currently totals $25.8 billion.

What Would Kamala Harris Do?

Contrast this with the Biden-Harris administration’s historic legislative achievements in federal transit policy.

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, also known as Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act of 2021, provides $106.9 billion in federal transit funding, an increase of $41.1 billion (63%) from previous levels, including $91.1 billion of guaranteed funding, $69.9 billion of contract authority, and $21.2 billion of advance appropriations for five fiscal years (2022 through 2026).

It also provided $15.8 billion of additional authorizations for the CIG program and $102.1 billion for passenger and freight rail, more than a five-fold increase from previous levels. Significant other achievements also included a ten-fold increase in low- and zero-emission bus grants.

This was only the first of three other major pieces of legislation that directly or indirectly bolsters the transit industry.

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 includes extension and even expansion of several alternative fuel tax credit; extended the tax exemptions transit enjoyed for alternative fuels; and provided a $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, $3.2 billion for Neighborhood Access and Equity Grants, and $2 billion for Low-Carbon Transportation Materials Grants.

A third major piece of legislation passed on a bipartisan vote, the Chips and Science Act, has already helped to increase the U.S. built supply chain for batteries and semiconductors, which is essential for continued growth in rail transit and zero emission buses, trucks, and cars.

The Harris campaign has promised to build on these achievements, but it has provided few details for what an encore would mean.

Even if there is only continuation of the current funding levels and policy, the industry is in store for an historic expansion of bus and rail projects throughout the balance of the decade, and possibly beyond.

FY 2025 Proposal a Sneak Preview

Perhaps, a sneak preview of these divergent futures is what the House has proposed for the next fiscal year.

The House Transportation Housing and Urban Development (THUD) Appropriations bill currently under consideration significantly cuts public transit and passenger rail funding authorized by the IIJA.

Specifically, the THUD Appropriations bill, together with the IIJA’s advance appropriations, provides a total of $19.6 billion for public transit in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025, a cut of 6.2% from the FY 2024 enacted level, and more than $2.4 billion, or 10.8%, less than the amount authorized in the IIJA.

In addition, the House bill proposes to cut passenger and freight rail funding by $262 million, nearly 2%, enacted current level and some $4.6 billion (22.4%) less than what was authorized in the IIJA.

The bill also includes several drastic policy changes, such as prohibiting actions on equity action plans and greenhouse gas emissions measures.

It also significantly cuts total CIG funding by $1.5 billion (38.1%) from the existing level. The bill provides no funding for Core Capacity projects but preserves the IIJA authorized levels for Buses and Bus Facilities Competitive Grants, Low-No Emission Bus Competitive Grants, and Ferry Grants.

The THUD Appropriations bill does include an important pro-transit policy provision, however.

Section 163 of the bill blocks the Rostenkowski Test, preventing a possible across-the-board cut of FY 2025 transit formula funds to each public transit agency.

However, unlike previous House attempts, the bill does not prohibit the FTA from hindering a project from advancing or approving a project seeking a CIG federal share of more than 40%.

The Senate will likely restore these cuts in its version of the bill this summer, which will result in a moderate bill that will land on the president’s desk later this year as one of his final acts of an historic transportation legacy.

Buy America is One of Few Common Positions

A few positions where the two candidates do converge are on trade policy, specifically Buy America and China. Both have significant implications for the available vehicles in the transit marketplace. If elected, Harris would continue to enforce current Buy America provisions, but likely not toughen them.

Trump could very well be more supportive of additional Buy America enforcement, perhaps even using his favorite tariff tool on offshore-made transit projects, which are hinted at in the Project 2025 document.

On China, Harris has suggested that she would continue to use the Biden mix of subsidies and targeted tariffs, while co-operating with US allies and their firms.

By contrast, Donald Trump would be very likely to raise tariffs substantially across the board, cut subsidies for clean-energy initiatives, and reduce co-ordination with allies.

However, Trump would find it hard to re-orientate policy, as many elected Republican officials would defend investments that benefit their states.

A final area on which the two agree is on the use of congestion pricing and other tools that would help local funding of projects.

The Project 2025 document advocates using these as part of encouraging public-private partnerships, while the Biden Administration has tried to encourage them through technical assistance.

Not Much Help for Suppliers

If there is anything that is clear from the radical differences between these two candidates and the jump ball that is the race at press time, it is that the supply chain will continue to need help, in part a result of COVID-19’s lingering dislocations, as well as a result of the demand generated by the historic federal transit program growth in the past three years.

More protectionist legislation will not help alleviate these shortages and will only restrict transit agencies’ procurement options, whether the radical vision of the Trump campaign succeeds or Harris’s prevails.

Some of the capacity expansion policies in the Chips and Science Act will continue to grow supply, and the FTA’s recent actions to help the bus marketplace will provide needed relief.

Yet, much more help will be needed. Hopefully, regardless of the election’s outcome, both sides can agree on that.