Trump is all-in on cars. It’s up to cities to stop him

American transportation policy will soon veer sharply to the right. The Trump administration has made no secret of its intent to build more highways, stifle electric vehicle adoption, and scrap safeguards around self-driving cars.

A goal nowhere on its agenda: Encouraging more Americans to leave their cars at home and instead travel by transit, bicycle, or on foot.

That is a marked change from the Biden administration, which championed initiatives like upgrading buses, improving street safety, and even subsidizing e-bike storage. In contrast, Project 2025, which has become Trump’s policy playbook, calls for terminating federal support for biking and walking and derides transit investments as “throwing good money after bad.”

Despite the sudden pivot in Washington, millions of Americans still want to drive less, which would reduce emissions, free up street space, and save some of the 40,000-plus lives lost annually in crashes. With incoming federal leaders viewing that goal with disinterest if not disdain, advocates must look toward lower levels of government for any meaningful reforms.

Happily, they’ll find no shortage of options. State and local governments have myriad opportunities to shift trips away from cars that won’t break their budgets and—crucially—don’t rely on the feds lifting a finger.

Improve public transit

Start with publictransit, Americans’ most popular non-car mode, and one that has historically received federal funding to launch new services. Although Congress has already allocated tens of billions of dollars toward new transit investments, Trump officials at the Department of Transportation could drag their feet approving projects. They may also try to kill congestion pricing in Manhattan, which is generating urgently needed capital for New York City’s transit network, and block other cities from adopting similar measures.

Although Trump poses a real threat to transit expansions, the federal government plays only a marginal role in the regular operations of buses and trains, which are financed through state and local funding along with farebox revenue. There are plenty of ways for local communities to improve daily service, particularly for buses.

Consider the regional bus networks that dictate where and how often vehicles run. Many route maps were conceived decades ago, and evolving residential and employment patterns have eroded their utility. By refreshing them, transit agencies can provide passengers with more useful service without necessarily adding vehicles or operators. The benefits can be substantial: In 2015, Houston’s first bus route redesign in almost a century halted decades of falling ridership.

An even more surefire way to attract passengers: Speed up the bus. In cities such as Richmond, Virginia, and Seattle, dedicated lanes have allowed buses to sidestep gridlock, making transit more competitive with driving. Although many jurisdictions have tapped federal funds to create Bus Rapid Transit lines, their relative affordability—$8 million per mile for a line built in Northern Virginia a decade ago ($11 million today)—suggests that many states and cities could pay for them independently.

But dedicated bus lanes are useless if they’re blocked by cars, as is frequently the case. A solution: Bus-mounted cameras, which are currently deployed in cities including New York City and Los Angeles. The cameras automatically snap pictures of cars that are illegally using a bus lane, triggering a ticket mailed to its owner. Initial analysis in New York City found that buses traveled faster on routes where the cameras were deployed, and that violators typically received only one citation, indicating that most changed their behavior. Despite their promise, bus cameras remain illegal in many states with robust urban transit systems, such as Massachusetts. State legislatures should fix that.

Another promising strategy: Building shelters that keep bus passengers comfortable while they wait for the next vehicle to arrive. In Utah, researchers found that shelters expand transit ridership, particularly on days with extreme weather. They may also provide an unusually cost-effective means of recruiting daily commuters, since they can cost as little as $10,000 each.

Make it easier to walk

Of course, passengers must still navigate their way to and from the bus stop, typically by walking or using a wheelchair. Brief though such “first mile/last mile” journeys usually are, they’re among the most dangerous segments of a trip. That’s particularly true if they take place after dark when three of every four pedestrian deaths occur. Investing in street lighting is an affordable way to make sure residents stay safe as they head to and from a transit station (or anywhere else).

Speaking of walking, no urban infrastructure is more vital—or more easily overlooked—than the sidewalk. Across American cities, footpaths are often crumbling or altogether absent; Austin alone is missing some 1,500 miles of them. As a result, those on foot must walk in the roadway alongside fast-moving vehicles, which is stressful and dangerous. U.S. pedestrian deaths hit a 40-year high in 2022; Black and Latino Americans are at particular risk.

Part of the problem is that most American cities have outsourced the responsibility for building and repairing sidewalks to property owners, even as local governments themselves maintain roadways. As a result, a few vacancies or neglectful landlords can create sidewalk gaps that undermine the entire pedestrian network.

For a solution, look to Denver. As of this January, the Mile High City no longer holds property owners responsible for the quality of pedestrian footpaths. Instead, the city has imposed an annual fee, typically $150, that funds a new citywide sidewalk construction program. Approved through a 2022 city referendum, Denver’s sidewalk takeover promises a major advance for pedestrian mobility—and it hasn’t involved a dollar of federal money.

Boost biking

Cities also don’t need federal support to enhance bikeshare. In 2022, the District of Columbia invested $19 million in Capital Bikeshare to add 80 stations and 3,500 e-bikes, more than doubling the system’s fleet. With financial support from D.C. and its suburbs, Capital Bikeshare has improved while remaining a relative bargain: An occasional Capital Bikeshare rider would pay just $2.50 for a 10-minute e-bike ride, while doing so on Citi Bike in New York City—which does not subsidize bikeshare—costs $8.79.

Local communities have many more options to encourage cycling, starting with the essential step of providing bike lanes that protect riders from cars. Study after study has found that safe bike lanes reduce crashes and compel more people to start riding, especially women. (They’re good for local business, too.) Adult cycling classes, like those available in Montgomery County, Maryland, can help inexperienced riders gain confidence, while e-bike libraries, such as in Vermont, invite residents to discover how easy it is to transport cargo or conquer hills with a battery-powered two-wheeler.

To truly turbocharge e-biking, state and local leaders should look to the purchase rebates that have proven wildly popular across jurisdictions from Pasadena to Rhode Island. In Connecticut, for instance, nearly 6,400 people applied in 2023 for an e-bike rebate, 13 times more than the state was able to distribute.

Give people a choice in how they travel

State and local policies like these can make traveling without a car more practical, pleasant, and appealing. Even so, compelling commuters to reconsider driving habits is, under most circumstances, extraordinarily difficult. But researchers have found that people are much more likely to adjust their travel behavior when they experience a sudden life change, such as switching jobs or moving to a new home. That being the case, local governments aiming to reduce driving could collaborate with large employers and landlords to offer “transportation welcome packages” with perks like free transit and bikeshare passes. A modest and temporary investment could forge travel habits that endure for years.

A caveat: Carrots alone can only do so much to expand the ranks of those walking, biking, and riding transit. Local and state policymakers should also unwind longstanding driving subsidies that have shielded car owners from paying the full cost of their vehicles.

A good place to start would be removing distortions that skew the price of car parking. In the last few years, dozens of cities including Lexington, Kentucky, and San Jose, California, have stopped requiring real estate developers to build a minimum number of parking spots with each development (the costs of parking construction are passed on to all tenants—including those who don’t own or use a car). Similarly ripe for a rethink: Free or dirt-cheap residential parking permits in cities like Boston, which allow car owners to pay pennies for the privilege of storing their private property on public streets.

Uniquely among the strategies outlined above, charging market rates for parking would expand tax revenues, which would be a welcome outcome for financially pressed local governments. Other tactics would require new spending, but many of them, such as bus shelters and e-bike libraries, can be implemented for thousands rather than millions of dollars. The priciest strategies, such as installing bus rapid transit or filling sidewalk gaps, can still cost a fraction as much as paving a highway or building a bridge—the kinds of auto-oriented investments that the Trump administration is likely to prioritize.

Even without the federal government providing a tailwind, cities and states can substantially upgrade transit, biking, and walking options, encouraging travel that’s greener, healthier, and more affordable. Republicans in Washington may no longer care about giving Americans a real choice in how they travel, but other public servants need not—indeed, should not—follow suit.