Medium Transit Intensive Cities Authorization Act of 2026
HB8785, titled the Medium Transit Intensive Cities Authorization Act of 2026, would amend federal transit formula law in 49 U.S.C. section 5336 to create a new apportionment category for medium-sized transit-intensive cities. The bill sets aside 1.5 percent of amounts not otherwise apportioned under existing formula categories for urbanized areas with populations between 200,000 and 999,999, and directs the Secretary of Transportation to distribute those funds according to a new performance-based formula.
Under the new formula, eligible areas would receive funds based on how many transit performance categories they meet or exceed relative to the industry average for urbanized areas with populations of at least 1,000,000. The bill defines six performance categories, including passenger miles per vehicle revenue mile, passenger miles per vehicle revenue hour, vehicle revenue miles per capita, vehicle revenue hours per capita, passenger miles per capita, and passengers per capita. The Secretary would use National Transit Database information to calculate the apportionments each fiscal year.
The bill would amend federal transit funding law by adding a new subsection to the transit apportionment statute and by adjusting cross-references in the existing formula. Its practical effect would be to reserve a small share of federal transit formula funds for medium-sized urbanized areas that perform well on transit usage and service efficiency metrics, potentially shifting some funding away from other uses within the same overall apportionment structure. Transit agencies in qualifying cities could receive additional federal operating or capital support through this performance-based allocation.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be a targeted, technical transit funding proposal rather than a broadly controversial policy change. There were no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from debate. The bill’s framing suggests an intent to reward transit-intensive mid-sized cities that compare favorably with larger urban systems, which may appeal to urban transit advocates and local governments seeking a more tailored funding formula.
The main point of potential contention is the formula design itself: the bill ties funding to performance relative to large urbanized areas, which could be viewed as favoring cities with already strong transit usage patterns over those trying to build ridership or expand service. Another possible issue is the redistribution effect of carving out 1.5 percent of otherwise unallocated funds, which may prompt concerns from other transit stakeholders about reduced flexibility or fairness in federal apportionments. No specific objections or supporters are identified in the provided record.