We’re almost a week into the transition to a new presidential administration, and there’s still a lot we don’t know— for example, President-elect Trump has not selected a transportation secretary. But if you look at statements he made during and after his campaign, there’s reason to think the coming years may bring more money for roads in our region and less for public transit.

We could be in for much more of what’s on the left and a lot less of what’s on the right. Images by and Mega Anorak on Flickr, respectively.

One program likely to be be affected is the one giving federal Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants. Created in 2009 to invest in regional transit projects around the country, TIGER grants have helped fund a number of projects in our region.

For example, $58 million in TIGER money went toward bus improvements in the region in 2010, including $8.5 million for the Metroway BRT in Alexandria and Arlington; $20 million went toward HOT lanes in Virginia in 2011; $10 million helped extend the Anacostia Riverwalk in 2012. The most recent beneficiary was Montgomery County, which received $10 million to build BRT from Silver Spring to Burtonsville.

This is what TIGER grants have gone to around the country in that same timeframe:

Image from the USDOT.

Under Trump, transportation is likely to mean “cars”

The TIGER program has been under fire ever since it was created. In 2013, House Republicans put forth a budget bill that would have eliminated TIGER completely (as well as cut 21% of Amtrak’s funding); In 2014, Senator Jim Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, tried to steer TIGER toward only funding roads and freight rail; in 2015, Republicans proposed extreme funding cuts to TIGER that would have made the program nearly useless.

Trump’s administration, with the support of a Republican-controlled House and Senate, could finally drive a nail in the coffin. Here are a few quotes from Trump’s stated infrastructure plan, along with thoughts on what they might actually mean:

  • “Leverage new revenues and work with financing authorities, public-private partnerships, and other prudent funding opportunities.” On the face of it, this isn’t bad. Public-private partnerships are regular government practice. But with Trump’s business focus, this could give more leverage to private companies over government, especially if implementing his plan would require hiring more government workers, which could prove to be unpopular with members of Congress.
  • “Harness market forces to help attract new private infrastructure investments through a deficit-neutral system of infrastructure tax credits.” Deficit-neutral is a popular phrase with Republicans and Democrats. In this case, Trump intends to make up the cost of infrastructure with tax revenue from the companies that build the infrastructure and the workers who would be employed to do the work. But this assumes that he’s creating jobs rather than just giving the work to construction workers who have already been paying taxes, and it also assumes that people will use the roads to the level necessary to raise enough revenue to offset the cost.
  • “Implement a bold, visionary plan for a cost-effective system of roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, railroads, ports and waterways, and pipelines in the proud tradition of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who championed the interstate highway system.” More airports could definitely be a positive, and bridges do need to be repaired. But the “tradition of Eisenhower” is the highway system and single occupancy vehicles and not public transit, which would be able to move people around for cheaper and reduce gas consumption.

What’s all this mean for our region?

An administration that prefers road infrastructure projects over rail and bus projects could pose big challenges for the region for several reasons.

If the administration gave private companies more power to build and maintain roads and bridges, it would create even more roadways with costly, controlled access — HOT lanes, HOV fees, toll roads, you name it. Expensive projects like these would most likely go up in areas where most people can afford to pay more for access. But for those who can’t, and who still need to travel in these places, there could be real problems.

Also, if Republicans also take TIGER funds away from transit projects, local jurisdictions may find it harder to improve public transportation for residents to compensate for the new, more expensive roads.

Finally, any projects to conserve lands for walking or jogging will very likely be off the table, and it would be harder to build new bikeshare stations or bike lanes.