Expand Public Transit

The Transportation Gap in Southeastern Massachusetts

For decades, southeastern Massachusetts has been left behind by federal transportation policy. While Boston and its immediate suburbs benefit from extensive MBTA subway, bus, and commuter rail networks, working families in Fall River, Taunton, Attleboro, Milford, and dozens of smaller towns face a different reality. Limited bus service runs only during business hours. Commuter rail stations remain miles away. Workers without cars cannot reliably reach jobs, medical appointments, or educational opportunities. This transportation poverty traps communities in cycles of economic isolation while federal highway dollars flow to projects that primarily benefit wealthier suburbs.

The numbers reveal a systemic failure. Since 1982, roughly 80 percent of federal surface transportation funding has been allocated to highways, while only 20 percent has gone to public transit.¹ In 2023, the federal highway program received $68.9 billion compared to just $16.9 billion for the Federal Transit Administration.² This four-to-one disparity has shaped American communities for generations, subsidizing suburban sprawl while starving the transit systems that working families depend on.

Massachusetts has made progress despite federal neglect. The South Coast Rail project, which began service on March 24, 2025, restored passenger rail to Fall River, New Bedford, and Taunton for the first time in 65 years.³ This $1 billion investment connects southeastern cities to Boston’s job market and represents a historic achievement. But the project was funded entirely by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts without federal support, and the planned Full Build extension still lacks identified funding.³ Meanwhile, towns like Milford, Bellingham, Hopedale, and Mendon remain disconnected from commuter rail despite the existence of the Milford Secondary freight line that could support passenger service.

The transit funding gap has consequences measured in human terms. Workers in Fall River—the largest city in the Fourth Congressional District—face commutes of ninety minutes or more to reach employment centers in Boston or Providence. Seniors without cars cannot access medical specialists. Young people in towns like Norton, Seekonk, and Rehoboth cannot reach community colleges or job training programs without relying on family members for rides. The lack of transit infrastructure limits economic opportunity and reinforces patterns of regional inequality that have persisted for decades.

The Transit Fiscal Cliff

Transit agencies across the country face an immediate crisis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress provided emergency relief funds that kept buses and trains running as ridership collapsed. Those funds have now been almost entirely obligated—the American Public Transportation Association found that agencies had spent more than 99 percent of federal COVID relief by mid-2023.⁴ Without new federal support, transit agencies face what experts call a “fiscal cliff”: sudden budget shortfalls that will force service cuts, fare increases, and layoffs.

The scale of the problem is staggering. Ridership dropped to 4.5 billion trips in 2021 and has recovered to only about 7.7 billion trips—still well below pre-pandemic levels.⁵ Fare revenue fell from $20 billion in 2019 to roughly $10 billion in 2023, adjusted for inflation.⁴ Transit agencies cannot simply cut their way out of this crisis without devastating the communities that depend on them.

The current federal funding structure makes the problem worse. Since 1998, federal transit funds can only be used for capital projects like purchasing new buses or building stations.⁴ Agencies cannot use Federal Transit Administration formula funds for operating expenses—the drivers, fuel, and maintenance that actually keep service running. An agency might have federal dollars sitting unused while it lacks the operating funds to put buses on the street. This restriction made little sense when it was enacted, and it makes no sense now as agencies struggle to maintain basic service.

Federal Legislation to Expand Transit

Progressive members of Congress have introduced legislation that would transform public transportation funding and directly benefit underserved communities in southeastern Massachusetts.

The Freedom to Move Act

Senator Ed Markey and Representative Ayanna Pressley—both from Massachusetts—have introduced the Freedom to Move Act to establish fare-free public transit across the country.⁶ The legislation would create a $5 billion competitive grant program to cover lost fare revenue for transit agencies that eliminate fares, while also funding improvements to bus stops, accessibility features, pedestrian infrastructure, and bike shelters. The program would be available to transit agencies in both urban and rural areas, ensuring that smaller regional authorities like the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority could access federal support.

Fare-free transit removes economic barriers for working families who must choose between transportation costs and other necessities. The average fare per transit trip was about $1.50 in 2023, but these costs add up for workers making multiple trips daily.⁴ Eliminating fares increases ridership, reduces administrative overhead from fare collection, and ensures that public transit functions as a true public service available to everyone regardless of income. Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and others have cosponsored this legislation, recognizing that transportation access is a fundamental component of economic opportunity.

The Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act

Representative Hank Johnson of Georgia has introduced the Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act with 88 cosponsors.⁷ This legislation would authorize $20 billion per year over four years for public transit operating expenses—the single largest investment in transit operations in American history. The bill would distribute funds to every recipient of Federal Transit Administration urbanized and rural area formula grants, ensuring that regional transit authorities serving smaller communities receive their fair share.

The legislation includes provisions specifically designed to help underserved areas. It would increase the federal cost share for rural transit operations to 80 percent, reducing the local match burden that often prevents smaller agencies from expanding service. It would prioritize funding for areas of persistent poverty and underserved communities—categories that include many of the working-class cities and towns in southeastern Massachusetts. For communities like Fall River, Taunton, and Attleboro that have historically been excluded from transit investment, this legislation represents a transformational opportunity.

Ending the 80-20 Rule

Transportation advocates have called for eliminating the 80-20 highway-transit funding split that has governed federal transportation policy for over four decades. Data for Progress polling found that 64 percent of voters support funding highways and public transit equally, including majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents.¹ The Institute for Policy Studies and Transportation for America have developed detailed proposals for restructuring federal transportation funding to achieve parity between highway and transit investment.²

Ending the 80-20 rule would dramatically increase resources available for transit expansion in Massachusetts. The MBTA’s commuter rail network could extend to communities currently beyond its reach. Regional transit authorities could offer more frequent service with longer operating hours. New bus rapid transit corridors could connect southeastern cities to employment centers. The current funding disparity reflects policy choices made decades ago that no longer serve American communities—and those choices can be changed.

Operating Flexibility for Federal Transit Funds

The Amalgamated Transit Union and other labor organizations have urged Congress to allow transit agencies to use federal formula funds for operating expenses, not just capital projects.⁸ This simple change would give agencies the flexibility to keep service running during the fiscal cliff rather than being forced to cut routes while federal dollars sit unused for capital purposes. The Moving Transit Forward Act, introduced by Senator Chris Van Hollen and Senator John Fetterman, would address the immediate fiscal crisis while longer-term reforms are developed.⁹

What This Means for the Fourth District

The Fourth Congressional District spans 35 municipalities from Brookline and Newton to Fall River and Attleboro. This geographic diversity creates distinct transportation challenges. Residents of Newton can walk to Green Line stations. Residents of Milford have access only to limited MWRTA bus service that operates during weekday business hours. This disparity in transit access correlates directly with disparities in economic opportunity.

The South Coast Rail extension has begun to address decades of neglect in southeastern Massachusetts. Fall River residents can now reach Boston by train for the first time since 1958. But the service currently operates with limited frequency, and many communities in the district remain beyond the reach of any reliable transit. The Milford Secondary rail line—a freight corridor that runs from Franklin through Milford toward Hopedale—could support commuter rail service, but no funded plans exist to develop this route. Towns in Bristol County like Seekonk, Rehoboth, and Norton have no fixed-route transit service at all.

Federal legislation currently before Congress would directly address these gaps. The Freedom to Move Act would help MWRTA eliminate fares and expand service to towns like Milford, Bellingham, and Hopedale that currently have minimal transit options. The Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act would provide operating funds that could support new bus routes connecting southeastern communities to commuter rail stations and employment centers. Ending the 80-20 highway-transit split would free resources for MBTA commuter rail extensions that have languished for decades due to funding constraints.

We Must Invest in Public Transit

I support the Freedom to Move Act, the Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act, and efforts to end the 80-20 highway-transit funding disparity. I will advocate for allowing federal transit funds to be used for operating expenses, giving agencies the flexibility to maintain and expand service. I will fight to secure federal funding for the South Coast Rail Full Build and for commuter rail extensions to underserved communities like Milford and Hopedale.

Public transit is not a luxury for wealthy urban areas. It is essential infrastructure that connects workers to jobs, patients to healthcare, students to education, and families to opportunity. The communities of southeastern Massachusetts have waited decades for the transit investment that other regions take for granted. Federal policy created this disparity, and federal policy can fix it.

The 80-20 rule reflects priorities from 1982 that no longer serve American communities. Climate change demands that we reduce vehicle emissions by shifting trips from cars to transit. Economic justice requires that we provide transportation options for workers who cannot afford car ownership. Regional equity means ensuring that Fall River and Milford receive the same consideration as Newton and Brookline.

---

---

References