Rep. Sean Duffy’s nomination as Secretary of Transportation presents a crossroads for U.S. infrastructure policy. Will federal investments prioritize high-profile airport projects, or will they address critical urban challenges like aging transit systems and equitable mobility that helps connect people to jobs? With cities facing tight budgets and mounting climate pressures, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
Federal priorities often favor airports due to their economic significance and high visibility. Airports are seen as gateways for international business and tourism, making them politically advantageous projects. However, critics argue that airports already receive a disproportionate share of funding compared to mass transit.
Shifting resources away from public transit risks widening the gap between well-funded aviation hubs and struggling urban transit systems, with profound implications for congestion, access, and emissions.
Where Does Transportation Rank on Trump’s Agenda?
Transportation has never been a marquee issue for Trump. During his first term, his infrastructure priorities leaned heavily on politically advantageous projects like highways and airports, with mass transit receiving far less attention.
Duffy’s nomination signals a continuation of this trend. His focus on projects that showcase economic competitiveness and high visibility aligns with Trump’s broader infrastructure narrative. However, this short-term, optics-driven approach could leave cities scrambling to fund critical transit improvements, exacerbating the gap between urban needs and federal priorities.
Mass Transit: A Potentially Neglected Priority
Mass transit systems are essential for reducing urban congestion, lowering emissions, and ensuring access to jobs. Yet under Duffy’s leadership, these systems risk being deprioritized, continuing a trend from Trump’s first term that emphasized airports and highways over subways and commuter rail.
For cities with aging transit infrastructure, federal subsidies are often the difference between progress and decay. Without robust support, cities may be forced to raise taxes or fares to close funding gaps—placing an outsized financial burden on transit-dependent residents, and folks already struggling to make ends meet.
Bypassing mass transit also undercuts plans to reduce car usage and CO2 emissions that help with urban sustainability goals. Federal indifference to mass transit would likely hinder cities’ efforts to combat climate change while expanding transportation access.
Airports Soar, But at What Cost to Cities?
Duffy’s emphasis on competitiveness and economic excellence suggests that airport infrastructure could take precedence during his tenure. Federal mandates needed to modernize airports—such as expanding runways, upgrading terminals, and implementing advanced security systems—often place additional significant financial burdens on cities.
Improving air travel has its advantages, but will it really help ease the rising costs for everyday travelers? It’s no secret that prices are climbing everywhere, and air travel is no exception. Here’s a glimpse at the layers driving these increases: tariffs on materials like aluminum and steel have raised production costs for companies such as Boeing and Airbus, which are then passed along to airlines and ultimately to passengers. Labor shortages and higher wages for pilots, flight attendants, and airport workers add another layer of expense. And if that weren’t enough, airports have increased Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs)—fees used to fund upgrades—which also get passed on to travelers, disproportionately affecting those on tighter budgets.
While airports are vital economic hubs, prioritizing them over mass transit risks exacerbating transportation inequities. Airport improvements often benefit wealthier business travelers, while reliable public transit serves a broader spectrum of urban residents. Cities that heavily invest in airport infrastructure may neglect other pressing transportation needs, leaving transit-dependent communities underserved.
High-Speed Rail: A Political Opportunity?
High-speed rail could emerge as a surprising contender for federal attention. While Trump’s first administration showed little interest in this mode of transit, shifting political dynamics might make it more appealing. High-speed rail aligns with Trump’s preference for transformative, headline-grabbing projects, offering an opportunity to cement his legacy.
California’s beleaguered high-speed rail project, championed by Governor Gavin Newsom, could serve as a test case. Federal support for the project might benefit both leaders politically—Trump could position it as a modernization effort to compete with nations like China and Japan, while Newsom could secure funding to advance the scaled-down project.
High-speed rail also offers bipartisan appeal. It addresses Democratic concerns about reducing congestion and emissions while aligning with Republican interests in job creation and public-private partnerships. However, its massive upfront costs and long timelines may deter Trump, who often favors projects with immediate returns.
Balancing Urban Needs with Federal Priorities
The balance of federal investments will determine whether urban areas thrive or falter. Federal investments in airport and highway infrastructure often come with strings attached, such as local matching funds, leaving cities to shoulder substantial financial burdens. Meanwhile, underfunded mass transit systems risk further decay and delays, exacerbating urban congestion and pollution.
Cities face a critical challenge: balancing federal priorities with their residents’ needs. If Duffy prioritizes airports and highways over subways and buses, cities may need innovative solutions to bridge funding gaps. Potential strategies include public-private partnerships, or increased local taxes.
Sean Duffy’s Impact on Urban Mobility
The future of urban mobility hinges on whether federal transportation policies address cities’ needs holistically or continue to favor high-profile aviation and highway projects. High-speed rail offers a potential opportunity for bipartisan progress, but it remains to be seen whether Duffy and Trump will embrace it.
As cities grapple with aging infrastructure and climate challenges, the need for fair federal transportation policy has never been greater. Duffy’s tenure will determine whether urban areas thrive or falter under new mandates and funding priorities. Will federal investments balance efficiency, access, and sustainability, or will cities be left holding the bill for policies that overlook their most pressing needs?
