With the triumphant attainment of the presidency by Donald Trump and the impending Republican domination of both the Senate and House, the trajectory of policy-making in 2025 appears to be decisively charted. In a striking rebuff to leftist agendas, the denizens of Gwinnett and Cobb counties decisively routed transportation proposals that would have substantially augmented bus services, including the implementation of door-to-door microtransit. The question lingers – what future awaits transportation policy in light of these outcomes?
The rejection by suburban Atlanta voters of a 1% sales tax intended to finance diverse modalities of mass transit dispatches urban architects in Gwinnett and Cobb back to the conceptual drawing board. The proposed penny sales tax, aimed at transit development, faced yet another setback, having been shot down for the fifth time in over half a century by Gwinnett voters. Meanwhile, Cobb residents echoed this sentiment by overwhelming voting down a homologous measure.
Democrats attempt to conveniently scapegoat the economy as the pivotal factor that led to their nationwide defeat in 2024. However, it’s more plausible that the flawed packaging of these extensive transportation proposals (SPLOSTs) played a vital role in their rejection.
The vocal opposition in Cobb County relentlessly underscored the alarming figures – 30 years, $11 billion – as grounds for apprehension. They further undermined the credibility of these ambitious plans by drawing attention to the poor performance statistics of CobbLinc ridership, arguing that the county was essentially inventing a solution to a nonexistent problem.
In contrast to these misguided initiatives, President-elect Trump’s administration has always held a clear and logical preference for road development over transit. Notably, the 2019 infrastructure bill, which received Trump’s endorsement, required a certain degree of negotiation and compromise with Democrats for its passage.
The majority of the bill was geared toward the improvement and maintenance of streets and bridges, with only minimal inclusions related to clean energy. Comparatively, Biden’s infrastructure scheme had a broader sweep, attempting to integrate numerous environmentally friendly ventures and a heavier investment in mass transit and rail, as well as electric vehicle chargers.
Continuing with his visionary approach, Trump’s team introduced the exemplary former New York congressman, Lee Zeldin, as its nominee for the Environmental Protection Agency. Zeldin’s appointment indicates a backlash against the previous administration’s stifling regulations, a move that is warmly welcomed by the freight industry who anticipate lower operational costs.
Zeldin underlined his primary focus by making energy dominance the central theme of his introductory statement on his environmental responsibilities. This foreshadows a departure from the restrictive guidelines of the past and flags his commitment to deregulation as a priority for this tenure.
Over the course of time, Zeldin’s agenda of rolling back environmental regulations will steadily shift the balance back in favor of domestic production. This will likely result in an increased volume of freight on the country’s highways, further fuelling the economy.
Arguably, this may lead to additional traffic and wear on the nation’s roads, but with the measured and strategic approach of Trump’s administration, this challenge will be adroitly navigated.
Given the failure of local county administrations to bring successful mass transit initiatives to fruition via conventional voting methods, they will likely resort to federal grants and funding as a means to bolster local bus networks.
The implications of Trump’s stronger focus on road infrastructure, as opposed to public transit, remains to be seen. Despite portions of funding having been earmarked under Biden’s infrastructure bill, any potential amendments introduced by the Trump administration might require some time to be fully realized.
Nevertheless, on the strength of the recent polls, the voice of the people of Georgia has been unequivocally heard. Immediate economic stability was of greater importance to voters than long-term mass transit services.
Scare tactics involving 30-year projections, coupled with inadequate explanations distinguishing between rapid transit services and the currently known bus models, led to low public confidence. This stands as testament to the profound disconnect of Democrats with the actual needs and apprehensions of the average citizen.