Proposed Transit Funding Cuts in the BUILD America 250 Act Threaten Mobility Nationwide From Rural Idaho to New York City

As the executive director of the Living Independent Network Corp., Jeremy Maxand spends his days navigating a persistent challenge: helping residents of southern Idaho who do not drive find reliable ways to get around. Like much of rural America, public transit options across the region are sparse, forcing residents to rely on a patchwork of limited services just to meet their basic daily needs.

The nonprofit organization, which primarily serves individuals with disabilities, receives $100,000 annually from the state through a federal appropriation. This modest sum finances the transit cards riders use to pay for localized transportation. Yet, Maxand characterizes the region’s public transit network as a “bare-minimum lifeline service” and a “piecemeal” arrangement that leaves little room for error.

That fragile lifeline could soon fray even further.

The surface transportation programs authorized under the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act—signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2021—are slated to expire at the end of the year. In Washington, lawmakers are actively hammering out the details of the bipartisan BUILD America 250 Act, a legislative package designed to reauthorize these critical surface transportation programs. While transportation advocates argued that the Biden-era legislation fell short of adequately expanding American mobility options beyond personal automobiles, they view the proposed BUILD Act as a profound and alarming step backward.

The legislative shift carries steep financial implications for transit agencies nationwide. According to an analysis by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), the BUILD Act authorizes $16.5 billion less for public transit than its predecessor. The new bill proposes $103.3 billion over five years, compared with a baseline of $119.9 billion established under the Jobs Act. When adjusted for inflation, the Urban Institute calculates that the BUILD Act would require an additional $24 billion just to match the funding levels of the previous legislation. Under the current proposal, every state in the nation would receive at least $10 million less in formula funding over the five-year lifespan of the law.

The Legislative Landscape and the Road to Expiration

The debate over surface transportation reauthorization represents a pivotal moment in federal infrastructure policy. Historically, federal transportation bills have served as the primary financial engine for constructing, maintaining, and expanding the nation’s roads, bridges, rail networks, and public transit systems.

In November 2021, Congress enacted the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), injecting historic funding into the nation’s aging infrastructure. The bipartisan package was heralded by the Biden administration as a once-in-a-generation investment that would modernize public transit, expand passenger rail, and repair crumbling roadways. However, the five-year authorization window established by the IIJA is rapidly drawing to a close, setting up a legislative deadline by December.

As congressional committees draft the successor legislation—the BUILD America 250 Act—policymakers are grappling with competing priorities amid mounting federal budgetary pressures. While proponents of the BUILD Act emphasize the need for fiscal restraint and bipartisan consensus, transportation economists and urban planners warn that reducing federal investment will have immediate, cascading consequences for regional economies, workforce mobility, and community equity.

A Hard Blow Beyond Big Cities

While major metropolitan areas frequently dominate discussions surrounding public transportation, transit experts emphasize that the proposed funding cuts will reverberate deeply through smaller communities, rural towns, and tribal lands.

“There would be a large decline in funding for public transit, and that would especially be true for projects that require what’s called capital investment funding—projects that require major investments for new lines,” said Yonah Freemark, a researcher with the Urban Institute.

Freemark noted that public transit is frequently misunderstood as a service exclusive to dense urban environments like the New York City subway system. “The reality is that millions of people rely on public transit in a lot of smaller communities, including a lot of rural communities and tribal communities around the country,” he said. “Those rural transit systems are much more reliant on federal support to provide the service that they offer than are the urban transit agencies.”

Many public transit agencies across the country have struggled to regain financial equilibrium since the COVID-19 pandemic, when ridership plummeted dramatically. This sudden drop in farebox revenue exacerbated years of chronic underinvestment. Transit advocates warn that imposing federal funding cuts upon an already strained sector could trigger catastrophic service reductions, particularly in areas with limited alternative infrastructure.

State-Level Impacts: Idaho, Maine, and Indiana Face Severe Shortfalls

The regional implications of the BUILD Act vary significantly, but numerous states face steep percentage drops in federal formula funding that threaten to destabilize local transit networks.

According to Urban Institute estimates, Idaho stands to experience the nation’s largest percentage drop in federal formula transit funding, facing an 18 percent reduction. Maxand pointed out that local governments in Idaho possess limited fiscal capacity to raise alternative revenue for public transportation through local taxes or bonds.

“When the federal funding goes away, everything goes away,” Maxand said. For vulnerable populations, such a collapse in service could result in severe social isolation, leaving individuals with disabilities unable to leave their homes except for critical medical appointments.

Maine faces a strikingly similar crisis, with the Urban Institute projecting a 16 percent reduction in federal formula funding. Josh Caldwell, co-facilitator of Transportation for Maine and an advocate with the Natural Resources Council of Maine, noted that the state’s transit system is already operating well below optimal standards.

“Nowhere in the state do we have service that is at the standard that we’d like to see, which is a regularity of every 15 minutes,” Caldwell said.

Maine’s transportation network currently relies on the federal government for approximately 38 percent of its overall funding. Compounding the federal funding threat, the Maine Department of Transportation is already grappling with a $400 million transportation funding shortfall. This deficit has been driven largely by declining gas tax revenues—a trend accelerated by a 2011 state decision to freeze the gas tax relative to inflation, alongside improving vehicle fuel efficiency and the gradual adoption of electric vehicles.

In the Midwest, Indiana presents another cautionary tale. Although less rural than Maine, the state faces a comparable decline in federal formula transit funding under the proposed BUILD Act. Austin Gibble, a transit planner based in Indianapolis, explained that the impending cuts could force the regional transit agency, IndyGo, to delay vital bus purchases, compelling the agency to rely on older, increasingly unreliable vehicles.

However, Gibble expressed even greater concern for Indiana’s less populated counties. “Rural agencies in Indiana are already horrifically oversubscribed,” he said. In Hamilton County—the largest county in Indiana lacking a fixed-route transit service—Gibble noted that the waitlist for the Hamilton County Express, a reservation-based service, can stretch for weeks.

Urban Centers and the National Debate

The repercussions of the proposed cuts are by no means restricted to rural and suburban America. Major urban centers, which account for the vast majority of total transit ridership, face billions of dollars in lost revenue. The Urban Institute estimates that New York City alone would lose $2.3 billion over five years under the BUILD Act.

The political fault lines over the legislation were evident in Congress, where Representative Jerry Nadler—who represents parts of New York City—stood as the lone Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to oppose the bill.

“It continues a familiar pattern: Highways are treated as the default national priority, while rail and transit are left fighting for insufficient resources, despite carrying millions of people, supporting regional economies, and reducing congestion,” Nadler said in a formal statement.

Critics of the legislation argue that federal policymakers are repeating past policy errors by prioritizing highway expansion over multi-modal transportation options. Danny Pearlstein, policy and communications director at the Riders Alliance, asserted that lawmakers should be aiming higher rather than scaling back investments.

“The Biden infrastructure bill was not the high water mark,” Pearlstein said. “We could do much better than that in a variety of different ways, and we shouldn’t hold up bipartisanship as a core value of how we fund transportation when we have such sharply diverted views of the role of government to invest in people and communities.”

Economic Implications for American Households

Beyond public transit budgets and municipal planning, transit advocates emphasize that the debate over federal funding is fundamentally an issue of household affordability. According to consumer expenditure data compiled by economic analysts, transportation consistently ranks as the second-highest ongoing expense in American household budgets, trailing only housing.

LeeAnn Hall, campaign manager for the Alliance for a Just Society’s National Campaign for Transit Justice, noted that diminished public transit availability often forces working-class households to absorb the high costs of purchasing, insuring, and maintaining personal automobiles.

“They have to pay more for gasoline. They’re going to be paying more for insurance. They have to think about parking. They have to think about maintenance and repair,” Hall said. “It’s expanding their household budget.”

Hall further argued that robust investments in public transit yield broad societal benefits that extend well beyond direct riders. Reduced traffic congestion, improved air quality, enhanced roadway safety, and expanded economic mobility for non-drivers are among the collective advantages of a well-funded transit network.

“Every dollar that we invest in public transit reduces congestion numbers, makes driving safer, and creates opportunities for families to have options,” she added.

An Unsustainable Path Forward

Back in southern Idaho, Jeremy Maxand continues his advocacy efforts to secure sustainable mobility options for his community, even as operational expenses mount. Rising fuel costs, particularly for diesel, have compounded the financial strain on regional transit providers. Maxand warns that federal funding reductions will ultimately land heaviest on society’s most vulnerable members, including senior citizens and individuals with disabilities.

Drawing a sharp analogy to illustrate the precariousness of the situation, Maxand underscored the vital nature of the services provided by community transit networks.

“It’s like saying you’re not going to pay for electricity to power the ventilator, but you’re going to leave the ventilator,” Maxand said. “What are we doing here? This is not sustainable.”

As the deadline for surface transportation reauthorization approaches, lawmakers in Washington face critical decisions that will define the trajectory of American mobility for years to come. Whether Congress will heed the warnings of transit planners, economists, and local advocates—or proceed with the significant funding reductions outlined in the BUILD America 250 Act—remains one of the most consequential legislative questions facing the nation’s infrastructure.