Transit Groups and Allies Ask Philanthropy to Step Up Movement Support at a Critical Moment

Hundreds of billions in federal dollars are poised to rain down on state, regional and local transportation agencies across the United States over the coming decade, thanks to a “once-in-a-generation” injection of surface transportation funding from last November’s infrastructure bill, which includes not only more dollars for transit, but more flexibility than in years past, according to experts.

Those dollars could reinforce a highway-dominated status quo that is toxic for our climate—transportation accounts for roughly a third of U.S. emissions—and has a deeply racist legacy. Or they could help launch a new era with cleaner air, more walkable communities and access to transportation options for all, no matter race, zip code or bank balance.

Yet philanthropy is not well positioned to push for those benefits. Foundation funding for transportation has recently averaged about $80 million a year, and amounts to less than 4% of climate change mitigation spending by grantmakers, according to ClimateWorks Foundation.

To rally foundations at a critical moment, a group of more than 35 transportation sector leaders and allies have released an open letter to philanthropy, “Funders Need to Re-think their Giving and Invest More in Clean Transportation to Curb Greenhouse Gases,” calling for $40 million annually over the next five years for community-based advocacy for better transportation.

They point to work already being done by groups on “shoestring budgets,” such as a New York City coalition that spearheaded a congestion pricing plan that will raise an estimated $1 billion annually, or a campaign in Houston pushing to pause a $9 billion highway widening project that would displace residents in low-income communities of color and increase pollution.

The list of signatories is dominated by mobility groups, such as Transportation for America and the League of American Bicyclists, but major environmental groups are also represented, including the Sierra Club, 350.org, Sunrise Movement, Natural Resources Defense Council and Rocky Mountain Institute. Identity-based groups have also signed on, including the NAACP and the smaller Native Organizers Alliance.

The letter’s funder organizers include Summit Foundation, TransitCenter and the Mobility and Access Collaborative, a funder group hosted by The Funders Network. The collaborative runs the Mobility Fund, whose 2020 grants backed groups that pushed for transit dollars in the COVID stimulus packages and helped inspire the letter.

A handful of other funders are also on board, including the Merck Family Fund, Jacob & Terese Hershey Foundation, Scherman Foundation, Bullitt Foundation, and Wend Collective, James Walton’s foundation. One of the country’s biggest regional climate funders, the Barr Foundation, has also signed on, as well as philanthropy-supporting organizations like the United Philanthropy Forum and the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

For its organizers, the letter comes as philanthropy is waking up to two intertwined imperatives for expanded transportation funding: the climate case to support solutions beyond electric vehicles, and the opportunity to reshape the United States’ racist transportation legacy, typified by new highways breaking up communities of color and polluting neighborhoods.

“There is a growing acknowledgment by climate funders that transportation is an issue — and that we need electric vehicles, but also other things, as well,” said Darryl Young, director of the Sustainable Cities Program at the Summit Foundation. “To the extent that we can call that out, it makes it easier for staff and leadership to go back to their boards and their donors and say, ‘Look, we need to do this.’”

Other transportation leaders, including both signatories and others who fund in the sector, say there has been long-running philanthropic interest in urban mobility, i.e. ensuring city residents have options for getting around, and there have been several studies over the years emphasizing its critical role in reducing emissions. But to them, the problem is low levels of grantmaking across the board on climate. That final point is something all parties agree on.

“It’s a small sliver of a small sliver, so we need to grow the pie,” said Anthony Eggert, director of ClimateWorks’ Drive Electric Campaign, which is likely the largest transportation effort in philanthropy, with more than $500 million pledged by donors through 2026. Eggert notes that sum pales in comparison to the various multitrillion-dollar transport sectors the initiative is seeking to influence.

The letter shows a burgeoning philanthropic consensus for a “both-and” approach to transportation funding, encompassing both vehicle electrification and mobility options. As one example, neither ClimateWorks nor the Drive Electric campaign signed onto the letter—as a matter of policy, they do not join such efforts, Eggert said. But several of Drive Electric’s partners are signatories, including NRDC, RMI and the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, whose December report on the essential role of both electric transportation and compact cities was featured in a recent blog post by the Drive Electric. ClimateWorks was also an early donor to the Mobility Fund.

Here’s what a handful of signatories — two major nonprofits and one funder group — said when I spoke with them about why they joined the push.

A “historic” opportunity

The Natural Resources Defense Council signed on for two interconnected reasons, according to Deron Lovaas, a senior advisor who leads the group’s transportation work. First, to counteract the racist history of transportation development and build a new equitable system, he said, it’s critical that frontline groups are at the decision-making table.

Second, he cited the sheer size of the potential prize. The new federal transportation bill provides roughly $600 billion in funding, and it includes a record amount of competitive grantmaking, according to Lovaas. While much of the funding appears to be earmarked for roads, “A lot more is flexible than people realize,” he said. “Those are highway programs increasingly in name only.”

NRDC sees the letter as a complement to its direct conversations with foundations about transportation opportunities. “This is a really big moment,” Lovaas said. “We have a real chance to build support for enduring change.”

Not that it’s a one-and-done opportunity. As with other major spending bills, the transportation package comes before Congress every five years. With its next appearance in 2026, midway through this critical decade on climate, Lovaas said that it’s important to build a strong base to ensure the next round prioritizes climate and equity in determining how the United States helps its residents get around.

“All of that points to the need for a sustained, serious investment in front-line, community-based groups so that we actually shape how this law is implemented and what comes next,” he said.

An emphasis on policy equity

Another signatory was the United Philanthropy Forum, the network of philanthropy-supporting organizations. While it is currently part of an infrastructure working group at Independent Sector, the organization has not previously worked on transportation, said Matthew L. Evans, the group’s senior director of public policy.

But last year, the forum’s board approved its first-ever statement on its public policy principles, which highlights racial equity as its leading public policy concern. One of its first actions was to come out in support of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act last year, ultimately writing a letter to Congress in support of the bill that was joined by more than 90 charitable sector leaders. The transportation letter is the latest step the United Philanthropy Forum has taken on that journey—and transportation’s history of racial inequity was integral to its participation.

“Historically, philanthropy has really been focused, from a public policy perspective, on protection-of-the-sector issues,” Evans said. “But we feel, especially in this window in time, the need to use our voice on other issues that impact the communities that we say we serve across the country every day.”

A think tank expands work on transportation

Since its founding 40 years ago, the Rocky Mountain Institute has focused on decarbonizing the world’s most polluting industries through means such as policy, finance mechanisms, market shifts and collaborations. Its work on transportation is more recent.

“RMI, in the last couple years, has made a really strong commitment to embracing this side of the transportation climate problem,” said Ben Holland, the institute’s manager for urban transformation. In part, that focus grew out of a report RMI produced that found reducing vehicle miles was essential to meeting the Paris Agreement climate goal of halving emissions by 2030.

Signing the letter reflected that conviction. It also reflected some concerns about the state of transportation philanthropy, according to Julia Thayne DeMordaunt, principal for urban transformation at RMI.

Not only is too little funding going out the door for climate in general, with just a small slice going to transportation, but more dollars are going to electric vehicles than mobility efforts, whether through accessibility programs or building denser communities, she said.

“There’s less funding going into those programs, and those programs are as impactful if not more impactful than vehicle electrification,” particularly when benefits such as reduced risk of vehicle accidents, more affordable transit options and lower use of personal vehicles are factored in, Thayne DeMordaunt said.

The need for unity

All the funders I spoke to emphasized the need to align their efforts to create a more unified transportation funding environment, one that supports both electric vehicles — including cars, trucks and buses — and public transportation options, from transit routes to bike lanes. That coordination, they say, is essential to tackling the thorny problem of transportation emissions — and the U.S. system’s inequities.

“We really need to collaborate. There's a risk that this is perceived as a zero-sum game, Eggert said. “This is about leveraging each other, working together, finding areas of common cause across our ecosystem. And that's the only way we have any chance of winning. If we fight amongst each other, oil is the winner, fossil fuels are the winner.”

The letter’s organizers agree. And they say philanthropy is missing out by not funding front-line groups pushing for changes at transit meetings and in local campaigns, changes that can seed much bigger shifts.

“When you look at the mobility space, it is community organizing that moves the needle, whether you're talking about local decisions, regional decisions, state decisions, or even to save transit during the pandemic,” said Martha Roskowski, coordinator of the Mobility and Access Collaborative. “It was the local groups that powered that movement.”

The letter’s goals mirror a broader push across climate philanthropy and beyond to put a greater share of dollars in the hands of local communities. As we’ve pointed out before, funders’ relatively paltry support for the climate movement’s ground game has come with a cost. With this crucial decade underway, whether those dollars shift and multiply — and what those campaigns accomplish — will help determine whether philanthropy can avert further climate chaos.

Note: This article has been updated to include additional context for Julia Thayne DeMordaunt's comments.

Featured