The current five-year period of transportation funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided a historic $673.8 billion to transportation programs over five years: nearly $380 billion for highways, $116 billion for transit, $102.5 billion for rail and the rest apportioned among aviation, water, pipeline and other programs, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
That law expires Sept. 30. Congress is working on the next multiyear legislation, known as surface transportation authorization. In today’s highly politicized environment, it’s questionable whether Republicans and Democrats can reach an agreement on a bill that will get President Donald Trump’s signature.
Here are five questions we asked lawmakers, state officials and transportation experts to learn what direction the next multiyear transportation bill might take.
What are stakeholders’ top priorities?
“My No. 1 priority is that we don't backslide from the funding levels in the bipartisan infrastructure law,” Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., said in an interview. Larsen is the ranking member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, where he has served for 25 years.
“Transit and rail are going to be important,” he said. “I think transit is a core transportation mode, and it needs to be thought of that way as we move forward.”
Safety is the highest priority for the National Association of City Transportation Officials, said Josh Naramore, the organization’s senior program manager for policy. “We want to see ways that programs can be bolstered and maintained to maintain a commitment for reducing fatal and serious injury crashes.”
Emerging transportation technologies, such as autonomous vehicles, are also on Naramore’s radar. He referred to draft legislation under discussion in the House to regulate AVs and robotaxis that would limit state and local regulation, noting it could be included in the surface transportation bill. NACTO wants to ensure “there's a clear pathway for cities” to participate in the regulatory process for AVs, he said.
Public transit is also high on NACTO’s list, Naramore said. “We're obviously big proponents of transit and want to make sure not only that there is commitment to the Federal Transit Administration's Capital Investment Grant program, but maybe even more money to it and making it easier for transit agencies and cities to access that funding.”
“First and foremost is to continue building on the success of the historic funding levels in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.”
Ward McCarragher
APTA Vice President for Government Affairs and Advocacy
The American Public Transportation Association shares some of NACTO’s goals. “First and foremost is to continue building on the success of the historic funding levels in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,” APTA Vice President for Government Affairs and Advocacy Ward McCarragher said. “Second is to pair that investment with streamlined delivery financing tools and strong local decision-making authority.”
APTA President and CEO Paul Skoutelas outlined four recommendations for the next surface transportation bill in an Aug. 20, 2025, letter to Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. They include building on current investment levels for public transit and passenger rail; improving safety, security, and accessibility for riders, workers and communities; accelerating project delivery by streamlining requirements; and including public transit in local decision-making.
The National League of Cities' highest priority “has to be maintaining access to federal support for infrastructure,” said Brittney Kohler, NLC legislative director of transportation and infrastructure.
Echoing Larsen, Governors Highway Safety Association Senior Director of Government Relations and Policy Daniel Zimmerman said funding must be maintained, “but, ideally, continue to increase because there's obviously a long way to go on improving safety on our roads.”
What do members of Congress say their constituents want in the next bill?
House members had the opportunity to speak about transportation issues in their districts and states during a Jan. 14 hearing held by the transportation committee.
Some members cited railroad crossing issues, including safety and blocked crossings. Rep. Kevin Mullin, D-Calif., said, “Each year, hundreds of Americans are killed or injured in accidents at railway crossings, underscoring the need for new, cost-effective solutions.” He proposed “new technology-driven approaches” such as lidar and artificial intelligence. He offered “to work with the committee to find ways to expand eligibility for existing rail safety grant programs.”
Others, including Reps. Jim Costa, D-Calif.; Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash.; and Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., cited intercity passenger rail as a high priority. Cohen said he is working with other members to reauthorize the Corridor Identification and Development Program and the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program. Appropriators slashed funding for the latter program for the current fiscal year.
Highways were top of mind for Rep. Ben Cline, R-Va., and Mike Flood, R-Neb. Flood is looking to build a new 13-mile highway east of Lincoln, while Cline wants to modernize Interstate 81 in Virginia. “While local economies are becoming more dependent upon [Interstate] 81 to bring goods to and help create jobs for our region, the aging road has not kept up with the demands of users since it was first constructed over a half-century ago,” he said at the hearing.
Those in states like Washington, where ferries are a common means of transportation, called for increased ferry funding. “My constituents rely on these boats every day,” said Rep. Emily Randall, D-Wash.
How will the next bill be funded?
Multiyear funding for surface transportation began with the 1978 Surface Transportation Assistance Act. That law enabled states and cities to plan for large infrastructure projects and investments. Funding comes from the federal government’s general fund and the Highway Trust Fund, established in 1956, which derives its revenues largely from fuel taxes.
The 1982 reauthorization designated 20% of Highway Trust Fund revenues to public transportation. Each subsequent reauthorization has followed that model, although transit hasn’t always received the full 20% the law specifies.
The Highway Trust Fund was the source of 46% of the IIJA’s transportation funding over five years. The HTF will keep collecting revenues beyond 2026, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates it will run out of money in 2028, largely because the federal gas tax hasn’t increased since 1993. To plug recurring gaps, Congress has transferred funds to the highway account multiple times since 2007, mainly from the Treasury's general fund.
Last year, Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., chairman of the House transportation committee, proposed federal motor vehicle registration fees ranging from $250 annually for electric vehicles to $100 for hybrids and $20 for all other passenger vehicles. The House approved the fees while voting on tax and spending provisions that became the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but they were not included in the final bill. (Transportation committee staff members did not respond to requests for an interview with Graves.)
The National League of Cities supports gradual increases in federal fuel taxes, which would then be indexed for inflation in future years, Kohler said. The NLC believes that any new transportation revenue mechanism should be fair, protect individual privacy and be a more reliable and higher-income source than the current system. The program should also be easy to administer and account for alternative-fuel vehicles through other revenue sources, she said.
The HTF’s mass transit account may be at risk. In November, the Trump administration floated the idea of killing it, according to reporting by Politico. That didn’t go over well in the House transportation committee, according to Larsen. “[Rep. Graves] was really clear that eliminating the mass transit account was a nonstarter,” he said. “I've already had conversations with Sam about transit, how important it is for our members to have robust transit funding, and it will be one of those issues that we continue to talk about.”
Smart Growth America President and CEO Beth Osborne has a different perspective on the future of the Highway Trust Fund. “I'd rather the trust fund be ended; throw the whole program into regular appropriations for better oversight,” she said. The current funding system is tilted toward new construction “that we cannot afford to maintain while the rest of the system is crumbling.” Osborne considers this a fatal flaw. “On a fundamental level, I believe there should be a fix-it-first approach,” she said.
Osborne said cities and states should focus on maintaining their transportation infrastructure before spending on new projects. So, what she supports is “not a tweak; it's turning things on their head.”
Will local entities still be able to compete for discretionary grants?
The IIJA and previous surface transportation authorizations provided transportation funding through formula funds and competitive grants. The Transportation Department distributes formula grants to states, tribal authorities and transit agencies based on parameters set by Congress, and those bodies can allocate the funds to local governments or other recipients.
Competitive grants may go directly to states, local and tribal governments, transit providers, nonprofit organizations, universities, research institutions and law enforcement agencies. They are awarded through a competitive selection process.
“We need to maintain a level of flexibility for states.”
Rep. Rick Larsen
Ranking Member, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials recommends that Congress prioritize formula funding over discretionary grants, and the federal government may be heading in that direction.
“We need to maintain a level of flexibility for states,” Larsen said, adding that “city and state officials all play an obvious, important role in establishing what their local transportation plans are.”
The NLC’s Kohler said that if “Congress wants to move away from grants and toward formula funds, then local governments need to maintain access in those formula programs.”
The concern is that with increased formula funding, local entities will have fewer opportunities to fund their priorities. “Local and regional governments are really the ones that are most accountable to the people they serve, and they're the best equipped to identify needs and to be able to invest in those projects,” NACTO’s Naramore said.
APTA strongly supports both formula funds and competitive grant funds for public transit, McCarragher said.
What are the chances of getting a bill passed before funding runs out?
The federal government shut down for 43 days in late 2025 as a single sticking point — Affordable Care Act subsidies — prevented the Senate from passing three spending bills. Another shutdown is possible this week, as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Saturday that Democrats would not vote for a spending package if it includes funding for the Department of Homeland Security, following the death of a Minneapolis man shot by federal immigration enforcement agents on Jan. 24.
The surface transportation bill, which must pass no later than Sept. 30, will come as midterm elections loom in November.
Kohler said, “There is a sweet spot here of timing where they are either going to make it happen before the midterms or it will be tied up.” She added that “if the authorizing committee for the programs wants to get this done, they need to work with the appropriators.”
GHSA’s Zimmerman predicts the legislation will not get done by the deadline, noting that a delay “would actually result in a pretty significant drop in funding for a lot of programs.” Smart Growth America’s Osborne is even more pessimistic: She doesn’t think the bill will get done this year or in 2027.
Larsen seems less worried. The House transportation committee has a long history of bipartisanship, he said. “There will be issues where Democrats and Republicans disagree, but [Rep. Graves] and I have been through this before,” Larsen said. “We've been on this committee for 25 years together.”
“We're going to try to bring people along … so that we get a good bill that we can all support, and that's important,” Larsen said, adding that “our experience on the committee shows that we can do that.”
