Infrastructure & Public Goods

Guarantee phaseout of oil and coal for energy production

This policy commits the government to a guaranteed phase-out of oil and coal as energy sources. Moving away from fossil fuels reduces air pollution, slows climate change, and shifts public and private investment toward cleaner alternatives.

Guarantee phaseout of oil and coal for energy production

Source: DB entry INF-ENR-005, status: MISSING. Pending editorial review.

Modernize the U.S. rail system

This policy funds major upgrades to U.S. rail infrastructure — including tracks, signals, electrification, and stations — so that trains become faster, safer, and more reliable for passengers and for moving freight across the country.

Invest substantially in modernizing the U.S. rail system, including upgrading track, signal systems, electrification, and station infrastructure to support reliable, safe, and efficient passenger and freight service

U.S. passenger rail infrastructure is significantly outdated compared to peer nations. Amtrak's Northeast Corridor — the highest-ridership rail corridor in the country — runs on infrastructure that includes bridges and tunnels from the 19th century, signal systems that require costly replacement, and electrification systems that are decades old. Modernization requires sustained investment in track replacement, grade crossing elimination, electrification, positive train control, and station accessibility. Modernized rail produces multiple public benefits: reduced highway and air traffic congestion, lower per-passenger carbon emissions, economic development along corridors, and transportation access for those who cannot drive.

Expand high-speed rail to connect major metropolitan regions

This policy invests in high-speed rail lines connecting major cities, giving travelers a fast, comfortable alternative to short-haul flights and congested highways while reducing pollution and traffic.

Invest in high-speed rail development to connect major metropolitan regions with reliable, frequent, and competitive passenger rail service as an alternative to short-haul air travel and highway congestion

High-speed rail (operating at 150+ mph) connects cities within corridors of 100–500 miles faster than flying when airport transit time is included, at lower cost and significantly lower carbon emissions per passenger. The U.S. has one high-speed rail corridor (Acela, Northeast Corridor, averaging around 80 mph due to infrastructure constraints) while France, Japan, China, Spain, Germany, and others have extensive high-speed networks. Corridors with strong ridership potential include California (Los Angeles–San Francisco), Texas (Dallas–Houston), the Southeast (Charlotte–Atlanta), and the Midwest (Chicago–Detroit–Milwaukee). High-speed rail development requires dedicated rights-of-way, electrified track, and advanced signal systems that are a significant public investment — but they are investments in infrastructure that lasts a century, not annual operating costs.

Separate the Northeast Corridor into an independent public authority and structurally reform Amtrak to prioritize long-distance and intercity passenger service over freight accommodation

This policy creates an independent public authority to manage the busy rail corridor from Washington D.C. to Boston, so passenger trains no longer get stuck waiting for freight trains. It also gives Amtrak trains legal priority on all routes, with real federal penalties for freight companies that cause delays.

The Northeast Corridor — the rail infrastructure running from Washington, D.C., to Boston — must be transferred to an independent federal public authority with dedicated capital funding, freed from the freight railroad ownership structure that currently forces passenger trains to yield to freight traffic; and Amtrak must be structurally reformed to give intercity passenger rail operational priority on all routes where Amtrak trains operate, with enforceable on-time performance standards backed by federal sanctions against freight railroads that cause delays.

Amtrak's chronic delays, especially outside the Northeast Corridor, are primarily caused by freight railroads that own the tracks on which Amtrak trains operate. Amtrak has statutory on-time rights but enforcement has been weak and litigation-dependent. The result is that passenger trains routinely wait in sidings while freight trains pass, producing unreliable service that drives passengers to cars and planes. The Northeast Corridor is owned by Amtrak itself, which is why service there is more reliable — but the infrastructure is aging severely and requires billions in deferred maintenance investment. Separating the Northeast Corridor into a dedicated public authority with ring-fenced capital funding prevents Amtrak's financial pressures from cannibalizing infrastructure investment. Structural reform to provide enforceable passenger priority on freight-owned tracks — with real penalties for freight railroads that cause delays — is the essential complement for the rest of the national network. Reliable, fast intercity rail is not possible within the current structure without these reforms.

Restructure Amtrak as a true public utility with a guaranteed federal operating appropriation

This policy restructures Amtrak as a public service — not a profit-driven business — with a guaranteed five-year federal budget that cannot be eliminated in any single budget cycle. No Amtrak route can be shut down without an independent review confirming that communities won't lose vital transportation.

Amtrak must be restructured as a public benefit corporation with a statutory public-interest mission that governs operational decisions over financial metrics; Congress must appropriate a guaranteed baseline operating budget on a five-year authorization cycle not subject to annual defund threats; and no Amtrak service route may be discontinued without an independent public-interest finding that no public benefit would be lost.

Amtrak is nominally a for-profit corporation but has never turned a profit — because passenger rail is a public service, not a commodity. Subjecting it to annual appropriations politics produces chronic underfunding, deferred maintenance, and route cuts driven by budget battles rather than public need. Peer nations fund national rail as a public utility with stable multi-year commitments. The UK, France, Germany, and Japan all operate national rail on multi-year funding frameworks. A guaranteed appropriation does not eliminate accountability — it replaces perverse budget-cycle incentives with performance metrics tied to ridership, on-time performance, and equity of access.

Mandate electrification of all new and substantially renovated federally funded rail infrastructure; no new diesel-only expansion after 2027

This policy requires all new and substantially renovated federally funded rail lines to run on electricity. After January 1, 2027, no federal money can go to diesel-only rail projects, and existing diesel corridors must submit federally funded conversion plans with full electrification completed within 15 years.

All new rail infrastructure receiving federal capital funding and all substantial renovation of existing rail infrastructure must be fully electrified; no federal funds may be used to construct, expand, or renovate diesel-only rail infrastructure after January 1, 2027; and existing diesel rail corridors must have federally funded electrification transition plans submitted within 3 years of enactment with implementation timelines not exceeding 15 years.

Rail electrification eliminates direct diesel emissions from passenger and freight operations, reduces per-passenger carbon footprint, lowers operating costs over the life of the infrastructure (electric locomotives are cheaper to operate and maintain than diesel), and enables integration with renewable energy grids. The Northeast Corridor, the only fully electrified major U.S. passenger rail corridor, demonstrates the performance advantages: electrified trains accelerate faster and require less maintenance. Every dollar spent building new diesel rail infrastructure locks in decades of emissions and operating costs that a 2027 cutoff prevents.

Mandate open track access for passenger rail at regulated rates; break up Class I railroad bottleneck control over passenger corridors; prohibit precision-scheduled-railroading models that cut network redundancy and crew safety

This policy requires large freight railroads to share their tracks with passenger and competing freight trains at regulated prices, so no single railroad can monopolize key routes. It also bans railroads from cutting train crews and route redundancy to boost profits at the expense of safety and on-time performance.

The Surface Transportation Board must be empowered to mandate open, non-discriminatory track access for passenger and competing freight operators at regulated rates on Class I railroad corridors; federal law must prohibit Class I railroads from owning or controlling more than 50% of the track-miles in any single freight corridor they operate on; and precision-scheduled-railroading operating models that eliminate crew redundancy, reduce network flexibility, or are found to compromise on-time performance or safety standards must be subject to mandatory federal review and suspension.

The U.S. freight railroad industry is dominated by seven Class I railroads that collectively control the track on which virtually all intercity passenger rail outside the Northeast Corridor must operate. This structural monopoly over track access is the root cause of passenger rail delays and the main barrier to rail network expansion. Precision-scheduled-railroading (PSR), widely adopted by Class I railroads since the 2010s, has produced short-term profitability by cutting redundancy, crew size, and network flexibility — at the cost of system reliability, safety incidents, and chronic passenger delays. The 2023 East Palestine, Ohio derailment brought national attention to PSR-related safety cuts. Open track access, regulated rates, and anti-monopoly structural limits are the correct structural remedies.

Expand public transportation systems in urban, suburban, and rural communities

This policy funds major expansion of buses, light rail, subways, and on-demand transit services in cities, suburbs, and rural areas, so more people have reliable ways to get where they need to go without depending on a personal vehicle.

Invest substantially in expanding public transportation systems including bus, light rail, subway, and on-demand transit to provide reliable transportation access in urban, suburban, and rural communities

Public transportation provides essential mobility for people who cannot afford cars, who cannot drive due to age or disability, or who choose not to drive. It reduces traffic congestion, lowers per-passenger carbon emissions, and enables economic mobility. Decades of underinvestment in U.S. transit systems — particularly outside dense urban cores — has created transit deserts where car ownership is a de facto requirement for participation in the labor market. Expanding public transit requires sustained capital investment in vehicles and infrastructure, adequate operating subsidies, and land use policies that support transit ridership. Transit investment also generates economic returns: the American Public Transportation Association estimates that every $1 invested in public transit generates approximately $5 in economic returns.

Prioritize reliable, affordable, and accessible public transportation in all infrastructure planning

This policy requires every major infrastructure decision to center public transit — including access for people with disabilities — as a core priority, not an afterthought. Affordable and reliable transportation is treated as a basic public need.

Public transportation access, reliability, affordability, and accessibility for people with disabilities must be considered and prioritized in all major infrastructure planning and investment decisions

Infrastructure decisions — highway routing, land use zoning, development incentives, utility placement — shape whether communities are accessible by transit or require car ownership. When highways are built through neighborhoods and highways receive orders of magnitude more public investment than transit, the result is forced car dependency. This rule requires infrastructure planning processes to consider transit access as a core outcome metric, not an afterthought. It also requires that transit systems are accessible to people with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act, with meaningful enforcement of accessibility requirements rather than symbolic compliance.

Phase out gasoline-only and internal-combustion-only passenger vehicles on a defined schedule

This policy sets a firm, credible timeline to end new sales of gasoline-only and combustion-engine-only passenger vehicles, with support programs for automakers, workers, and buyers to manage the shift to cleaner alternatives.

Establish a defined, credible phaseout schedule for the sale of gasoline-only and internal-combustion-engine-only passenger vehicles, with transition support mechanisms for manufacturers, workers, and consumers

The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S^[4]. Phasing out new ICE vehicle sales is the most direct policy available to decarbonize transportation. A defined phaseout schedule — with sufficient lead time for manufacturer transition planning — is far more effective than fuel economy standards alone, because it creates a clear market signal for investment in electric vehicle technology, charging infrastructure, and battery supply chains. Several U.S. states (California and others) have set phaseout dates; federal coordination creates national consistency and prevents market fragmentation. Transition support must include: worker assistance for those employed in ICE manufacturing; consumer incentives to accelerate adoption before the phaseout date; and infrastructure investment to ensure charging access is universal.

Require plug-in hybrid capability during transition periods where full electrification is not yet feasible

In vehicle categories where full electric options are not yet practical or affordable, this policy requires plug-in hybrid capability at minimum — so vehicles can run on electricity for shorter trips while charging infrastructure is built out nationwide.

During transition periods where full electrification of specific vehicle categories is not yet technically or economically feasible, require at minimum plug-in hybrid capability to enable partial electrification and charging infrastructure investment

Some vehicle categories — long-haul trucks, construction equipment, farm vehicles — face greater electrification challenges than passenger cars due to range, duty cycle, and weight requirements. For these categories, plug-in hybrid capability serves as an interim standard that enables: partial electrification of daily operations (most trips are short enough for battery range); investment in charging infrastructure that benefits later full electrification; and manufacturer development of electrification technologies at scale. This rule is a transition standard, not a permanent alternative to full electrification. It is paired with a phaseout schedule for full electrification once technology matures.

Establish extremely strict fuel-efficiency standards during the transition away from internal combustion vehicles

While gas-powered vehicles are still being sold, this policy sets and regularly tightens strict fuel-efficiency standards with no exemptions or rollback provisions, cutting pollution from the millions of combustion-engine vehicles already on the road.

During the transition period before the ICE vehicle phaseout, establish extremely strict and regularly tightened fuel-efficiency standards to reduce emissions from the existing ICE fleet, with no grandfather exemptions or rollback provisions

During the period before an ICE vehicle phaseout takes effect, the existing ICE fleet will continue to emit. Strict fuel efficiency standards reduce these emissions and create market incentives for manufacturers to invest in electrification technology. The U.S. has a long history of successful Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards — and a history of industry lobbying to weaken them. This rule requires standards that are: ambitious (achievable with best available technology, not average technology); regularly tightened (on a defined schedule, not subject to indefinite delay); applied across all vehicle categories without SUV/truck loopholes that have historically allowed manufacturers to avoid efficiency gains; and insulated from administrative rollback without congressional action. Standards must apply until the phaseout date, with no relaxation of requirements for legacy ICE vehicles sold near the end of the transition period.

Build a national public EV charging network with mandatory coverage in rural areas, multi-unit housing, and lower-income communities

This policy funds a national EV charging network ensuring no rural community is more than 50 miles from a fast charger, apartment buildings must have charging access, and lower-income communities are specifically targeted for investment — so the shift to electric vehicles works for everyone, not just homeowners with garages.

Federal law must fund and require a national network of publicly accessible electric vehicle charging stations with mandatory coverage standards ensuring that no rural community is more than 50 miles from a publicly accessible Level 3 fast charger, that multi-unit housing buildings above a threshold size are required to install Level 2 charging infrastructure, and that federal EV infrastructure funding specifically targets lower-income communities and communities without home charging access to ensure that the transition to electric vehicles does not replicate existing transportation inequities.

Electric vehicle adoption is currently limited by charging access inequity. Homeowners with garages can install home charging and benefit most from EVs; renters, apartment dwellers, and rural residents cannot. Without public charging infrastructure in multi-unit housing and rural corridors, the EV transition will be a benefit for the affluent and a barrier for everyone else. The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act allocated $7.5 billion for EV charging infrastructure — significant but insufficient given the scale required, and subject to implementation challenges including construction delays and equipment reliability problems. A functioning national EV network requires mandatory coverage standards (not just grant funding for willing communities), building codes requiring charging infrastructure in new and substantially renovated multi-unit buildings, and geographic equity requirements ensuring that rural communities and lower-income neighborhoods are not left last. The transition to clean transportation must be universal, not stratified by wealth and housing type.

Establish a dedicated Federal Public Transit Trust Fund at parity with the Highway Trust Fund

This policy creates a dedicated federal fund for public transit matched in size to the Highway Trust Fund that pays for roads. Transit agencies receive funding within 90 days of each fiscal year so that service disruptions caused by budget uncertainty are eliminated.

Congress must establish a Federal Public Transit Trust Fund capitalized by a dedicated revenue stream — a vehicle miles traveled fee, a fuel tax allocation, or equivalent mechanism — at funding levels equivalent to those provided to the Highway Trust Fund on a per-trip basis; the Fund must be governed by statute to prohibit transfer or rescission of funds for highway use; and annual appropriations from the Fund must be distributed to transit agencies within 90 days of fiscal year start to prevent service disruptions from funding uncertainty.

The Highway Trust Fund, established in 1956, has provided a stable, dedicated revenue mechanism for highway construction for seven decades. No equivalent dedicated mechanism exists for public transit — transit capital is funded through the annual appropriations process and subject to political uncertainty that makes long-term capital planning impossible. Federal highway funding has historically received approximately 4–5 times more per year than transit funding, despite transit carrying a significant share of commuters in major metropolitan areas. A dedicated Trust Fund at parity corrects this structural imbalance and enables transit agencies to plan multi-year capital programs with confidence.

Highway-to-transit parity: every new federally funded highway lane-mile must trigger equal-value transit investment in the same metro region

This policy requires that every federal dollar spent on new highway lane-miles in metro areas over 200,000 people be matched with an equal federal investment in public transit in the same region. Highway expansions can no longer crowd out transit funding.

Any federal funding for new highway lane-mile construction or expansion in a metropolitan statistical area with population over 200,000 must trigger a mandatory equal-value federal transit investment in the same metro region within the same fiscal cycle; this requirement must apply to all new lane-miles, including managed lanes, toll lanes, and express lanes; and no waiver or exemption may be granted unless the Secretary of Transportation certifies in writing that transit investment is infeasible and explains the basis for that finding.

Every new highway lane-mile induces additional vehicle traffic (induced demand) while degrading the economic case for transit alternatives in the same corridor. The result is a structural ratchet: highway expansion begets more driving, which reduces transit ridership, which justifies cutting transit, which forces more driving. Highway-transit parity breaks this cycle by requiring that every dollar of induced-demand highway expansion is matched by investment in its alternative. This is not a tax on highways — it is a structural requirement for balanced investment that gives riders real transportation choices. Research consistently shows that widening highways does not permanently reduce congestion but does suppress transit mode share in the same corridors.

Make transit operating costs eligible for 50% federal match to prevent service cuts and fare hikes during fiscal downturns

This policy allows transit agencies to receive federal funding that covers 50% of day-to-day operating costs — like driver wages, fuel, and maintenance — not just construction. This prevents transit agencies from cutting service or raising fares during economic downturns.

Federal transit law must be amended to make transit operating costs — including labor, fuel, maintenance, and administration — eligible for a 50% federal funding match on the same basis as capital costs; this operating match must be available on a permanent, formula-based basis not subject to annual appropriations competition; and transit agencies receiving operating funds must demonstrate maintenance of service levels and must not raise base fares above inflation without a public hearing process.

Current federal transit law permits federal funding for capital costs (vehicles, stations, tracks) but provides only limited assistance for operating costs. This has produced a perverse pattern: transit agencies can access federal funds to buy new buses but cannot use federal funds to pay the drivers. During fiscal downturns, operating costs — which are primarily labor — must be cut from local budgets, producing service reductions and fare hikes precisely when ridership demand is highest and riders are most economically vulnerable. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated this vulnerability starkly: transit systems that received emergency operating assistance maintained service; those that did not were forced into cuts that have not fully recovered. A 50% federal operating match would replicate the highway funding model, where federal funds cover both construction and maintenance.

Prohibit use of federal transit funds for fare enforcement policing; require civil-only fare recovery

This policy prohibits federal transit dollars from being spent on police or surveillance for fare enforcement. Unpaid fares become civil matters — handled like an administrative fine — and no one can be arrested or given a criminal record simply for not paying a bus or train fare.

No federal transit funds may be used to pay for police officers, fare enforcement agents, or surveillance systems deployed primarily for fare collection enforcement; transit agencies receiving federal funds must adopt civil — not criminal — fare recovery processes, including civil notice and administrative payment processes; and no person may be arrested, detained, or subjected to a criminal record solely for failure to pay a transit fare.

Fare enforcement policing imposes criminal justice system contact — with its attendant risks of arrest, jail, record, and collateral consequences — on people who are often poor enough that they cannot afford a transit fare. The social cost of criminalizing transit fare evasion vastly exceeds the revenue recovered. Multiple cities have documented that fare enforcement disproportionately targets Black and Latino riders. Civil fare recovery — a civil fine payable by mail, with waiver available for demonstrated low income — recovers fare revenue without criminal entanglement. Barring federal transit funds from policing cost centers realigns the incentives that drive transit agencies toward enforcement and toward service investment.

Free public transit in cities over 500,000 population, funded by federal operating subsidy and congestion pricing revenue

This policy makes public transit fare-free in cities with more than 500,000 people, funded by federal subsidies and fees charged to drivers entering congested downtown areas. Cities going fare-free must maintain the same routes, frequency, and fleet size — no service cuts allowed.

Transit systems serving metropolitan areas with population over 500,000 must offer fare-free service funded through a combination of dedicated federal operating subsidy and mandatory congestion pricing revenue; federal operating subsidy eligibility for fare-free systems must be established by statute within 2 years of enactment; and no city implementing fare-free transit under this rule may reduce service frequency, coverage, or vehicle fleet size as a condition of the transition.

Fare-free public transit eliminates the transaction cost and stigma of fare collection, increases ridership — particularly among low-income riders who most depend on transit — reduces boarding time and improves schedule reliability, and eliminates the enforcement apparatus required to collect fares.^[7] Luxembourg made its entire national transit network fare-free in 2020. Numerous U.S. cities including Kansas City, Missouri have implemented fare-free transit with documented ridership increases. The revenue argument against fare-free transit is weaker than commonly presented: fares typically cover only 20–40% of transit operating costs, while fare collection infrastructure, enforcement, and boarding delays impose significant costs. Congestion pricing revenue — charged to single-occupancy vehicles entering dense urban cores — is the natural funding complement, simultaneously reducing car trips and funding the transit alternative.

Prohibit criminalization of transit fare evasion; fare disputes are civil matters only with no arrest, detention, or criminal record

This policy prohibits arresting, prosecuting, or giving anyone a criminal record for not paying a transit fare. Fare evasion becomes a civil infraction with a maximum fine of $100, and that fine is waived for people earning below twice the federal poverty level.

Federal law must prohibit any state or local government receiving federal transit funds from subjecting any person to arrest, criminal prosecution, criminal record, or incarceration solely for failure to pay a transit fare; fare evasion must be treated as a civil infraction subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100, with income-based waiver available for persons below 200% of the federal poverty line; and transit agencies must provide a written administrative dispute process for all civil fare citations.

Criminalizing poverty — including the poverty that makes a $2.75 bus fare impossible — is a structural wrong, not a law enforcement solution. Arrest, criminal record, and incarceration for fare evasion imposes lifetime costs on individuals that dwarf the revenue value of any fare recovered. Studies in New York, Washington D.C., and other major cities have documented that fare enforcement arrests fall overwhelmingly on Black and Latino riders, replicating patterns of racially disparate policing through a transit funding mechanism. Civil penalties with income-based waivers recover revenue proportionate to ability to pay while eliminating criminal justice entanglement. This card establishes federal conditions on transit funding; the complementary INFR-FUND-0004 prohibits federal funds from being used for enforcement policing.

Metropolitan areas over 1 million must implement downtown congestion pricing; all net revenue must be dedicated to transit operations and capital

This policy requires metro areas with more than 1 million people to charge drivers a fee to enter the most congested downtown areas within 5 years. All money collected — after administrative costs — must be spent on public transit in that same region, so driving fees directly fund better transit options.

All metropolitan statistical areas with total population exceeding 1,000,000 must implement a vehicle congestion pricing program covering at minimum the central business district and high-density employment centers within 5 years of enactment; all net revenue from congestion pricing — after program administration costs — must be deposited into a dedicated transit fund and used exclusively for transit operations and capital investment within the same metro region; and no revenue from congestion pricing may be used for highway construction, expansion, or maintenance.

Congestion pricing is among the most well-documented tools for reducing traffic congestion, improving air quality, and funding transit. Stockholm implemented congestion pricing in 2006 and achieved a 20% reduction in traffic, sustained over time. London's congestion charge, introduced in 2003, reduced central London traffic by 30% and funds Transport for London operations. New York City began implementation of congestion pricing for Manhattan in 2024 before administrative suspension. The revenue-dedication requirement is essential: without it, congestion pricing revenue can be diverted to general highway spending, which would perversely subsidize the vehicle use the charge is meant to reduce. Pairing the congestion charge with transit investment creates the virtuous cycle: less driving, more transit funding, better service, further mode shift.

Federal Rural Transit Service Standard: every community of 2,500 or more residents must have publicly subsidized transit connection to nearest regional hub

This policy guarantees that every community of 2,500 or more people has at least one daily, publicly subsidized transit connection to the nearest city or county seat. The federal government steps in to fund it when states and localities fail to provide the required service.

Federal law must establish a Rural Transit Service Standard requiring that every incorporated community or census-designated place with 2,500 or more residents have at minimum a daily publicly subsidized transit connection to the nearest regional hub city or county seat; the federal government must serve as the funding backstop of last resort where state or local governments fail to provide compliant service; and the Department of Transportation must publish annual compliance reports by state and region.

Rural transit deserts are a structural deprivation of transportation freedom. Residents of small towns and rural communities who cannot drive — due to age, disability, poverty, or choice — are effectively imprisoned in place without public transit connections. Car dependency is not a natural state; it is the result of decades of policy that defunded rural bus service and invested exclusively in highway infrastructure. The U.S. lost the majority of its rural intercity bus network when Greyhound and regional carriers abandoned unprofitable routes between 1980 and 2020. The Essential Air Service program (established 1978) provides a direct model: federal guarantee of minimum service frequency to small communities with federal funding backstop when commercial service does not cover costs. The same model must be applied to ground transit.

Federal intercity bus restoration program to restore scheduled service to rural corridors abandoned since Greyhound network collapse; modeled on Essential Air Service

This policy restores intercity bus routes in rural areas that lost service when private bus companies like Greyhound cut their networks. Modeled on the Essential Air Service program for small airports, it subsidizes carriers — public or private — to run at least one round trip daily on abandoned rural corridors.

Congress must establish a Federal Intercity Bus Restoration Program providing operating subsidies to carriers — public, nonprofit, or regulated private — that restore scheduled intercity bus service on rural corridors that have lost commercial service since 2000; subsidies must be provided on a competitive basis with minimum service frequency standards of at least one round trip daily; and no subsidy may be used to fund service in corridors adequately served by existing commercial operators without a public-need finding.

The collapse of the Greyhound intercity bus network — the result of deregulation, competition from low-cost airlines, and population shift — has left large portions of rural America without any scheduled intercity ground transportation. Greyhound eliminated service to hundreds of communities between 2004 and 2020. The Essential Air Service (EAS) program has successfully maintained air service to small communities using competitive subsidy contracts; the same model applied to intercity bus would restore connectivity at far lower per-passenger cost than air service. Intercity buses are cost-effective, accessible to people without driver's licenses, and produce lower emissions per passenger than cars or planes. Federal investment in restoring this network is an equity imperative for rural communities.

On-demand microtransit as a federally guaranteed service right in communities where fixed-route transit is not cost-effective

In rural communities where running a regular bus route is not cost-effective, this policy guarantees residents access to a publicly subsidized, on-demand ride service for medical, work, and essential trips — bookable by phone or app — with same-day availability for medical appointments.

In communities of 2,500 or more residents where fixed-route transit service is demonstrated to be cost-ineffective due to low population density, federal law must guarantee access to on-demand microtransit service — publicly subsidized, app-accessible with phone-call alternative — with maximum 2-hour scheduling windows for medical, employment, and essential service trips; this guarantee must apply to all residents including those without smartphones; and transit agencies must provide same-day booking for medical appointments within 24 hours of notice.

Fixed-route bus service is cost-efficient at population densities sufficient to generate consistent boardings per route-mile. Below those densities — which describes much of rural and exurban America — on-demand service models are far more cost-effective. On-demand microtransit programs in rural areas including Via's partnership with various transit agencies have demonstrated ridership gains and cost savings versus empty fixed-route buses. The smartphone access requirement must include phone-call alternatives because many rural residents — especially elderly and low-income — lack smartphones. The medical appointment carve-out is essential: inability to get to a medical appointment is a predictable, preventable outcome of transit deserts that the 2-hour scheduling standard addresses.

Federal TOD zoning mandate: all transit stations receiving federal capital funding must have mixed-use, mixed-income, high-density zoning within ½ mile within 5 years

This policy requires any city receiving federal money to build a transit station to allow dense, mixed-use, mixed-income development within a half-mile of that station within 5 years. At least 40 housing units per acre must be permitted without special review, and cities that refuse lose future federal transit funding.

As a condition of receiving federal capital funding for any fixed-guideway transit station, the host jurisdiction must adopt and maintain mixed-use, mixed-income, high-density zoning within a ½-mile walkable radius of the station within 5 years of station opening; the Secretary of Transportation must withhold future federal transit capital funds from jurisdictions that fail to maintain this zoning; and the minimum density standard must allow at least 40 units per acre by-right with no discretionary review required.

Transit investment is only as effective as the land use around it allows it to be. A light-rail station surrounded by single-family-only zoning and surface parking generates far fewer riders — and far less economic return on the federal investment — than the same station in a walkable, mixed-use neighborhood. Research on transit-oriented development consistently shows that walkable, mixed-use land use within ½ mile of transit stations produces 2–4 times the ridership of car-dependent land use patterns. Attaching zoning conditions to federal capital funding is legally established precedent in multiple areas of federal grant-making. The 5-year window provides adequate time for planning processes while preventing indefinite delay.

Federal preemption of exclusionary zoning within ¼ mile of federally funded transit: single-family-only zoning prohibited within transit walkshed

This policy overrides local zoning laws that limit land near federally funded transit stations to single-family homes only. Within a quarter mile of any such station, apartment buildings of at least 3 stories must be allowed by federal right, and mandatory minimum parking requirements are automatically eliminated.

Federal law must preempt any state or local ordinance that zones land within ¼ mile of a federally funded fixed-guideway transit station for single-family residential use exclusively; within this transit walkshed, by-right multifamily development of at least 3 stories must be permitted as a matter of federal right; and no state or local government may impose minimum parking requirements within ¼ mile of a federally funded transit station, with any existing parking minimums automatically voided upon station opening.

Single-family-only zoning around transit stations is an affirmative barrier to transit ridership, housing supply, and equitable urban development. It forces people into car dependency by preventing the density necessary to make walking to transit convenient. Studies of U.S. transit systems have found that zoning within ½ mile of rail stations is predominantly single-family in many metro areas, including significant portions of Los Angeles and Bay Area BART station areas. Parking minimums near transit are similarly perverse: they consume land that could be housing, encourage driving over transit use, and impose costs on all development near transit regardless of whether residents own cars. Federal preemption within a defined walkshed is appropriate because the federal government funded the transit investment whose value exclusionary zoning destroys.

30% affordable housing set-aside in all federally funded TOD projects, affordable at or below 60% AMI

This policy requires that at least 30% of homes in federally funded developments near transit stations be affordable to families earning 60% or less of the area median income, with those affordable rents locked in for a minimum of 40 years. Federal funds cannot be used for projects that displace lower-income residents without replacing those homes nearby.

Any residential development project receiving federal transit capital funding, federal TOD grants, or federal tax credits and located within ½ mile of a federally funded transit station must include at minimum 30% of residential units affordable at or below 60% of Area Median Income (AMI), with rents affordable at that income level for a minimum of 40 years; this affordability requirement must be enforced by deed restriction and recorded against the property; and federal funds must not be used to finance development that displaces existing lower-income residents without equivalent replacement housing in the same transit walkshed.

Transit investment without affordability protection produces gentrification: rising land values around new transit stations displace the lower-income residents who most need and use transit. Research on gentrification patterns around new transit stations in cities including San Francisco, Washington D.C., and Seattle has documented displacement of lower-income residents and communities of color following transit investment. A 30% affordable set-aside at 60% AMI ensures that the communities that most depend on public transit have the right to live near it. The 40-year deed restriction prevents expiration of affordability commitments and conversion to market-rate housing after initial financing is repaid.

Fully fund ADA paratransit to eliminate next-day booking barriers; require same-day service availability; private right of action for denial of service

This policy fully funds ADA paratransit — the door-to-door transit service for people with disabilities — and requires same-day service for medical and emergency trips within 4 hours of request. If a transit agency unlawfully denies service, the affected person can sue in federal court and recover at least $500 per incident.

The Americans with Disabilities Act paratransit obligation must be fully funded at federal expense to eliminate next-day and advance-booking barriers for persons with qualifying disabilities; transit agencies must provide same-day ADA paratransit service for trips to medical appointments and emergency services within 4 hours of request; any denial or failure to provide required paratransit service must create a private right of action in federal court with statutory damages of not less than $500 per incident plus attorney's fees; and federal transit funds must be withheld from agencies with documented patterns of service denial.

ADA paratransit — door-to-door transit service for people whose disabilities prevent them from using fixed-route transit — is a legal requirement under the Americans with Disabilities Act but is systematically under-resourced. Many paratransit systems require 24-hour advance booking, making them unusable for same-day medical appointments or emergencies. Funding gaps have produced wait lists, service denials, and scheduling failures that leave disabled people stranded. A private right of action with statutory damages creates an enforcement mechanism that does not depend on underfunded federal agency oversight. Same-day availability for medical and emergency trips is the minimum standard of a system that actually meets the ADA's stated purpose of equal transportation access.

All new transit vehicles and stations must be 100% ADA compliant; existing accessibility gaps remediated on mandatory 10-year schedule with annual federal reporting

This policy requires all new transit vehicles and stations to be fully accessible to people with disabilities, with no exceptions. Existing inaccessible stations and vehicles must be fixed within 10 years, and agencies must publish annual public reports tracking their progress toward full compliance.

All new transit vehicles and all new or substantially renovated transit stations receiving any federal funding must be fully ADA compliant as a non-waivable condition of federal funding; all existing transit stations and vehicles that are not fully ADA accessible must have documented remediation plans submitted to the Department of Transportation within 2 years of enactment with full compliance achieved within 10 years; and transit agencies must submit annual public reports documenting accessibility gaps, remediation progress, and projected completion dates, with federal funds withheld from agencies that miss annual milestones without documented hardship justification.

The ADA was enacted in 1990. More than three decades later, numerous transit systems still operate stations and vehicles with significant accessibility barriers, including missing or broken elevators, inaccessible platforms, and vehicles without functioning wheelchair ramps. The MTA New York City Transit system, the largest in the United States, had only approximately 28% of its subway stations fully accessible as of 2023. Accessibility failures are not merely inconveniences — they are denials of the constitutional promise of equal access to public life. A 10-year mandatory remediation schedule with annual federal reporting and fund-withholding consequences creates enforceable accountability that decades of good-faith ADA compliance efforts have not produced.

Federal Complete Streets mandate: all federally funded road projects must include pedestrian, bicycle, and transit accommodation — no waivers

This policy requires every federally funded road project to include safe sidewalks, bike lanes, and transit access — no exceptions, no waivers. Roads must be designed for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders, not just for drivers.

All road construction, reconstruction, and major rehabilitation projects receiving federal transportation funding must include safe, accessible accommodation for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit vehicles as an integral and non-waivable design element; the Federal Highway Administration must update its design standards within 18 months of enactment to make complete streets design the default and not an elective option; and no federal highway or road project may be designed to the minimum safety standard that treats non-vehicular users as an afterthought.

The United States builds roads primarily for cars and treats pedestrian and bicycle accommodation as optional features to be added when budgets permit. The result is that trillions of dollars of federally funded road infrastructure has been designed and built in ways that make walking and cycling dangerous or impossible. The U.S. pedestrian fatality rate is approximately 3 times higher than that of peer European nations with similar levels of driving, largely attributable to roadway design rather than driver behavior. Complete streets design — which integrates sidewalks, protected bike lanes, transit stops, and safe crossings as standard elements of road design — reduces pedestrian and cyclist fatalities, increases active transportation, and serves people of all ages and abilities. No waivers means no exceptions: roads that cannot accommodate pedestrians and cyclists safely should not be built.

Safe Routes to Transit: dedicated federal funding for sidewalk and protected bicycle infrastructure connecting neighborhoods to transit stops within 1 mile

This policy funds continuous sidewalks and protected bike lanes connecting neighborhoods to transit stops within 1 mile, prioritizing low-income areas and neighborhoods with the highest pedestrian injury rates. All paths must be accessible for wheelchairs and mobility devices.

Congress must establish a Safe Routes to Transit program providing dedicated federal formula grants to transit agencies and local governments to fund construction of continuous sidewalk networks and protected bicycle lanes connecting all residential areas within 1 mile of fixed-route transit stops; grant recipients must prioritize neighborhoods with the highest rates of transit dependency, pedestrian injury, and lowest-income residents; and all Safe Routes to Transit infrastructure must meet ADA accessibility standards with no barriers to wheelchair and mobility-device access.

A bus stop is useless if the sidewalk to reach it does not exist or is not accessible. A significant share of U.S. transit stops lack safe pedestrian access from surrounding neighborhoods — a gap that effectively excludes the residents most dependent on transit from using it. Studies of transit access barriers have found that sidewalk gaps and unsafe pedestrian crossings within the first and last mile of trips are among the most commonly cited barriers to transit use. Safe Routes to Transit addresses this first-and-last-mile gap directly: protected bike lanes and continuous accessible sidewalks connect riders to the transit network, expanding effective transit coverage without requiring new vehicles or routes.

No new federal highway lane expansion in metro areas of 500,000+ without equal-or-greater concurrent transit investment in the same corridor

This policy blocks new federal highway lane additions in large metro areas over 500,000 people unless an equal or greater transit investment for the same corridor is fully funded and ready to build at the same time. Highway widening cannot break ground until the paired transit investment is secured.

No federal funds may be used to add lane-miles to any existing highway in a metropolitan statistical area with population over 500,000 unless the project is accompanied by a concurrent transit investment of equal or greater dollar value serving the same corridor; this requirement applies to all added lane-miles including HOV lanes, managed lanes, and toll lanes; and the transit investment must be shovel-ready and funded before the highway expansion is permitted to break ground.

Highway lane expansion in urban areas is among the least effective infrastructure investments available: induced demand research consistently shows that new highway capacity is fully absorbed by new vehicle trips within 5–10 years, returning congestion to pre-expansion levels while permanently increasing car dependency in affected corridors. Multiple studies including research by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute and University of Toronto have quantified induced demand at approximately 100% over medium-term horizons. Requiring concurrent transit investment as a condition of lane expansion does not prohibit highway investment — it requires that the public investment serve all transportation modes, not only the mode that already has the largest share of infrastructure spending.

All commercial airports receiving $50M+ in annual federal AIP grants must have a direct rail or rapid transit connection or a funded implementation plan within 10 years

This policy requires major commercial airports receiving $50 million or more a year in federal grants to have a direct rail or rapid transit connection — or a funded plan to build one within 10 years. Cost alone is not an acceptable reason to skip the transit connection requirement.

All commercial airports receiving $50,000,000 or more per year in federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants must have a direct rail connection, bus rapid transit connection, or ADA-accessible shuttle network meeting minimum frequency standards as a condition of continued grant eligibility; airports without qualifying connections must submit a funded, credible implementation plan to the FAA within 3 years of enactment with full implementation within 10 years; no waivers may be granted on the basis of cost alone, and FAA may not approve grants exceeding 10% of annual AIP funds to non-compliant airports after the 10-year deadline.

Airports are major trip generators that simultaneously receive billions in federal subsidies and fail to connect to the public transit networks that serve their surrounding regions. Many major U.S. airports — including Dallas/Fort Worth, the nation's third-busiest by passenger volume — lack direct rail connections, forcing travelers and airport workers into car dependency. Workers who cannot afford to drive or park near airports face significant access barriers to airport employment. Rail connections to airports reduce car trips, reduce airport area congestion, serve airport workers equitably, and generate ridership for surrounding transit networks. Conditioning AIP grants on transit connectivity aligns federal airport investment with federal transit investment goals.

Assault of transit workers is a federal felony with mandatory minimum sentence; all transit vehicles must have physical operator barriers within 3 years

This policy makes it a federal felony to assault any transit worker on the job, with a mandatory minimum prison sentence of at least 1 year. All federally funded transit vehicles must install physical barriers protecting drivers and operators from the passenger area within 3 years.

Physical assault of any transit worker — including bus operators, rail operators, station agents, and maintenance workers — while in the performance of their duties must be classified as a federal felony carrying a mandatory minimum sentence of not less than 1 year of imprisonment; all transit vehicles receiving federal operating or capital funds must be equipped with physical protective barriers between the operator compartment and the passenger area within 3 years of enactment; and transit agencies must report assault incidents to a federal database with annual public reporting of incident rates by agency.

Transit workers — particularly bus operators — face extraordinary rates of assault on the job, including verbal abuse, spitting, punching, and attacks with weapons. The Amalgamated Transit Union has documented thousands of assaults on transit workers annually in the United States and has campaigned for physical operator barriers and enhanced criminal penalties for decades. Physical operator barriers — glass or polycarbonate barriers separating the operator compartment from the passenger area — have been shown in multiple deployments to dramatically reduce assaults. The federal felony classification sends an unambiguous message that transit workers perform a public safety function and are entitled to the same legal protections as other public safety workers. Annual federal reporting creates accountability for agencies that fail to protect their workers.

Section 13(c) labor protections: no federal transit funds to agencies that diminish collective bargaining rights or union status of transit workers

This policy strengthens federal rules that tie transit funding to respect for transit workers' union rights. Transit agencies must certify each year that they have not undermined workers' collective bargaining or union status — agencies that violate this must repay up to 3 years of federal transit funding.

Section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act, which conditions federal transit funds on the preservation of collective bargaining rights and union status of transit workers, must be strengthened to require affirmative annual certification by each transit agency receiving federal funds that it has not taken any action to diminish, challenge, or circumvent the collective bargaining rights, union recognition, or existing collective bargaining agreement of any transit worker; any agency found to have violated Section 13(c) must repay all federal transit funds received in the prior 3 years and must be ineligible for federal funds until compliance is restored.

Section 13(c) has been federal law since 1964 but has been weakened through administrative interpretation and inadequate enforcement over decades. Transit agencies have found ways to restructure operations, outsource services, or use political pressure to undermine transit union agreements while technically complying with the letter of 13(c). Strengthening the certification requirement and imposing meaningful fund-repayment penalties for violations creates an enforcement mechanism commensurate with the protection Congress intended. Transit workers are disproportionately Black and brown and have built unionized middle-class careers through the transit sector; dismantling their collective bargaining rights has outsized racial economic justice implications beyond the transit sector.

Bus operator rest standards: minimum 8-hour rest between shifts, no split shifts exceeding 10 total hours; federally enforced

This policy sets federal safety standards for bus drivers: at least 8 consecutive hours off between shifts, and no split shifts with more than 10 hours from start to finish. Fatigued drivers are a safety risk to themselves and everyone on the road, and bus operators have a private right of action if these standards are violated.

Federal transit law must establish minimum rest standards for bus operators including: a minimum 8 consecutive hours off duty between the end of one work period and the start of the next; a prohibition on split shifts with total scheduled time exceeding 10 hours from first report to final release; mandatory real-time operator condition monitoring protocols for operators on duty for more than 8 consecutive hours; and civil penalties enforceable by the Department of Transportation against transit agencies that violate these standards, with a private right of action for operators denied required rest.

Bus operators drive vehicles weighing up to 40,000 pounds carrying dozens of passengers in dense urban environments. Operator fatigue is a documented cause of transit accidents. Split-shift scheduling — a common transit labor practice in which operators work a morning rush, are off for several hours, then return for the evening rush — can extend the total workday to 12–14 hours while paying only 8–10 hours of wages, producing fatigue while paying less. Federal Hours of Service regulations govern truckers, freight rail operators, and airline pilots — transit bus operators are not covered by equivalent federal standards. Extending federal rest standards to transit operators applies the same safety logic that already governs all other commercial vehicle operators.