Navigating Federal-State Transportation Coordination for the 2028 Olympics

As Los Angeles prepares to host the 2028 Olympic Games, one of the most complex challenges facing organizers is the development of an integrated California federal transportation strategy for the Olympics. With millions of visitors expected to descend upon Southern California, the pressure to create seamless, efficient transportation systems has never been greater. The success of these games will depend largely on how effectively state and federal agencies can coordinate their efforts, overcome bureaucratic hurdles, and align sometimes competing priorities.

Transportation infrastructure represents not just a logistical challenge but an opportunity to demonstrate American innovation and efficiency on the world stage. The 2028 Olympics presents a unique moment to leverage federal resources alongside California’s transportation expertise to create solutions that will serve Olympic visitors and leave a lasting legacy for residents long after the closing ceremonies.

This article explores the current landscape of federal-state transportation coordination, identifies key challenges, and offers evidence-based recommendations for improving collaboration between California agencies and federal departments as they prepare for this global event.

Current Federal and State Plans

Overview of California’s Transportation Strategy

California’s approach to Olympic transportation planning has been underway since Los Angeles secured the bid in 2017. The state’s transportation strategy centers on several key initiatives designed to accommodate the massive influx of visitors while minimizing disruption for residents.

Central to California’s planning is the “Twenty-Eight by ’28” initiative, which identified 28 major transportation projects for completion before the Olympics. This ambitious program includes:

• Extension of the Metro Purple Line to Westwood
• Airport Metro Connector
• LAX Automated People Mover
• Regional connector transit project
• Multiple highway improvement projects throughout Los Angeles County

The California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) has prioritized sustainable transportation solutions, with significant investments in public transit expansion, zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and intelligent transportation systems. These priorities reflect California’s broader commitment to reducing carbon emissions while improving mobility.

The state has allocated approximately $7.2 billion toward Olympic-related transportation improvements, though funding gaps remain for several critical projects. California’s strategy emphasizes leveraging existing infrastructure while strategically expanding capacity in key corridors expected to experience the highest Olympic traffic volumes.

Comparison with Federal Transportation Plans

The federal government’s approach to supporting Olympic transportation needs has evolved significantly since Los Angeles was awarded the games. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and subsequent federal transportation legislation have created new funding streams and mechanisms that can potentially support Olympic-related infrastructure.

Key components of the federal transportation approach include:

• Department of Transportation (DOT) grant programs targeting major infrastructure improvements
• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funding for congestion mitigation and safety improvements
• Federal Transit Administration (FTA) support for public transit expansion
• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) resources for airport modernization
• Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) funding for passenger rail improvements

The federal approach typically emphasizes broader national priorities including economic development, safety, and equitable access. While the Olympics aren’t explicitly mentioned in most federal transportation planning documents, several recent federal initiatives align well with California’s Olympic transportation needs.

For example, the USDOT’s Smart Cities Initiative promotes many of the technology-driven transportation solutions that would benefit Olympic operations. Similarly, federal programs supporting transit-oriented development could enhance the effectiveness of California’s transportation strategy if properly coordinated.

The fundamental challenge lies in aligning the federal government’s nationwide priorities with California’s Olympic-specific needs, particularly regarding timing, funding mechanisms, and project selection criteria. While the federal transportation policy framework offers substantial resources, it was not designed with the Olympics specifically in mind.

Challenges in Alignment

Differences in Priorities Between Federal and State Agencies

Despite shared objectives of improving mobility and infrastructure, federal and state transportation agencies often operate with distinct priorities that can complicate federal-state coordination. These differences manifest in several ways that directly impact Olympic transportation planning.

Federal agencies typically prioritize projects with national significance, adherence to established funding formulas, and initiatives that can be replicated across multiple states. The Department of Transportation’s grant programs, for instance, evaluate applications based on national criteria that may not fully account for the unique circumstances of Olympic preparation.

In contrast, California’s Olympic transportation priorities focus on:

• Time-sensitive completion deadlines tied to the 2028 event
• Concentration of resources in specific geographic areas with Olympic venues
• Temporary capacity expansions for the Games period
• Projects with high visibility for international visitors
• Solutions to accommodate extraordinary peak demands

These divergent priorities create tension in decision-making processes. Federal funding formulas designed for equitable distribution nationwide may not provide sufficient concentration of resources in Olympic host regions. Conversely, California’s focus on rapid implementation for Olympic deadlines may conflict with federal requirements for extensive environmental reviews and public comment periods.

Another significant challenge involves balancing immediate Olympic needs with long-term transportation goals. While federal agencies typically favor projects with sustained benefits, some Olympic-specific transportation solutions may be temporary or have limited utility beyond the Games. Reconciling these different time horizons remains a persistent challenge in transportation logistics planning.

Barriers to Effective Coordination

Beyond differences in priorities, several structural barriers impede seamless coordination between federal and state transportation agencies. These obstacles, if not addressed, could significantly impact the delivery of critical 2028 Olympics transportation infrastructure.

Administrative complexity represents a primary barrier. The transportation ecosystem involves dozens of agencies across multiple levels of government, each with distinct processes, timelines, and requirements. For Olympic planners, navigating this complex web of authorities can be extraordinarily time-consuming and prone to delays.

Specific barriers to coordination include:

• Misaligned funding cycles between federal and state budget processes
• Inconsistent regulatory requirements and approval procedures
• Fragmented decision-making authority across multiple agencies
• Limited mechanisms for real-time information sharing between jurisdictions
• Competing performance metrics and success indicators

The environmental review process illustrates these challenges. Federal projects typically require National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, while California projects must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Though similar in intent, these processes have different timelines, documentation requirements, and approval mechanisms. Projects requiring both approvals often face extended timelines that threaten Olympic deadlines.

Funding mechanisms present another coordination challenge. Federal grants often require substantial matching funds from state or local sources and come with stringent reporting requirements. For cash-strapped state agencies already committing significant resources to Olympic preparation, these matching requirements can delay or derail otherwise viable projects.

Additionally, technological systems used by different agencies often lack interoperability. This creates data silos that hinder the integrated planning necessary for managing Olympic transportation demands. When transportation management systems can’t communicate effectively, the result is often suboptimal resource allocation and missed opportunities for efficiency.

Best Practices for Coordination

Case Studies of Successful Bipartisan Transportation Coordination

Despite the challenges outlined above, several precedents demonstrate effective federal-state coordination on complex transportation initiatives. These case studies offer valuable lessons for Olympic transportation planning.

The Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympics provides particularly relevant insights. Federal and state agencies formed the Olympic Transportation System (OTS), a unified command structure that coordinated all transportation activities. This approach featured:

• A centralized transportation command center with representatives from all relevant agencies
• Streamlined approval processes for Olympic-specific transportation projects
• Special federal funding allocations tied to specific Olympic transportation deliverables
• Temporary regulatory exemptions to facilitate rapid implementation
• Unified communication protocols across all transportation stakeholders

The result was widely considered among the most successful Olympic transportation operations in recent history, with minimal congestion and high satisfaction among athletes and spectators.

More recently, the Interstate 11 project connecting Arizona and Nevada demonstrates successful bipartisan, multi-jurisdictional coordination. This project established a joint planning office with dedicated staff from state DOTs and federal agencies, operating under a formal interstate compact that clarified roles and decision-making authority.

The Seattle region’s Sound Transit expansion offers another instructive example. This massive public transit initiative successfully navigated the complex interplay between federal funding requirements and state/local priorities. Key to its success was the creation of an intergovernmental affairs office specifically tasked with aligning federal grant applications with local priorities and ensuring consistent communication across all governmental layers.

What these successful cases share is the establishment of formal coordination structures with clear authority, dedicated resources, and explicit processes for resolving conflicts. They demonstrate that effective coordination is possible when institutional barriers are proactively addressed through purpose-built governance mechanisms.

Recommendations for Enhancing Cooperation

Based on both successful precedents and lessons from previous coordination challenges, several specific strategies could enhance California federal transportation strategy cooperation for the 2028 Olympics:

Establish a Joint Olympic Transportation Authority (JOTA): Create a specialized entity with representatives from federal DOT, Caltrans, LA Metro, and other key stakeholders. This entity would have dedicated authority to make time-sensitive decisions and resolve cross-jurisdictional issues for Olympic transportation projects.

Develop Fast-Track Approval Mechanisms: Implement special procedures for Olympic-critical projects, similar to disaster recovery expedited reviews. These could include concurrent rather than sequential reviews, simplified documentation requirements, and dedicated staff at federal agencies for Olympic-related approvals.

Create Unified Funding Instruments: Establish specialized Olympic Infrastructure Bonds or grants that blend federal, state, and private funding under a single application and reporting framework, reducing administrative burden while maintaining accountability.

Implement Technology Integration Protocols: Develop data-sharing standards and interoperable platforms that allow transportation management systems across jurisdictions to communicate seamlessly during planning and operations.

Form Specialized Working Groups around specific transportation challenges with clear deliverables and deadlines. These might include:

• Airport Capacity Enhancement Team
• Venue Access and Egress Planning Group
• Public Transit Capacity Working Group
• Traffic Management Technology Task Force
• Transportation Workforce Development Committee

Leverage Innovation in Transportation Through Public-Private Partnerships: Engage private sector expertise and resources through formal partnership structures that align with both federal and state objectives. Technology companies, in particular, can provide advanced solutions for traffic management, passenger information systems, and integrated ticketing.

Establish Olympic Transportation Performance Metrics: Create shared success indicators that align federal and state objectives, focusing on outcomes (e.g., travel time reliability, capacity, customer experience) rather than jurisdictional compliance.

By implementing these recommendations, California and federal agencies can overcome historical coordination challenges and develop a truly integrated approach to Olympic transportation planning. The result would be not just successful Games operations but lasting improvements to the region’s transportation infrastructure.

Conclusion

Successfully navigating the complex landscape of federal-state coordination for the 2028 Olympics transportation infrastructure represents both a significant challenge and a transformative opportunity. The games will place extraordinary demands on Southern California’s transportation systems, requiring unprecedented collaboration between California agencies and federal departments.

As we’ve explored, the current state and federal transportation plans contain both alignments and divergences. The challenges in coordination stem from differing priorities, administrative complexities, and structural barriers in funding mechanisms and approval processes. However, case studies from previous large-scale events demonstrate that these obstacles can be overcome through intentional governance structures, streamlined processes, and clear lines of authority.

The recommendations presented—establishing a Joint Olympic Transportation Authority, implementing fast-track approvals, creating unified funding instruments, and leveraging innovation in transportation—provide a roadmap for enhancing cooperation. By adopting these strategies, stakeholders can ensure that transportation logistics for the Olympics not only meet the immediate needs of the games but also create lasting benefits for residents and businesses throughout the region.

For expert guidance on navigating federal-state policy coordination, The M2 Group provides strategic advisory services to help your organization succeed in the Washington policy landscape. Our bipartisan expertise in transportation policy and intergovernmental relations positions us uniquely to support stakeholders preparing for this historic event while maximizing long-term infrastructure benefits.