Removing highways is a tricky business, a costly and time-consuming physical feat, but advocates say even a small commitment to addressing the harms of legacy highway infrastructure is a positive sign.
As billions for infrastructure flow from Washington, moving away from dependence on the automobile will require new cooperation between federal grantmakers and state and local recipients. Are carless cities in our future?
Partisan rancor has seeped into the once quiet, technical field of transportation policy. Conservatives increasingly oppose policies that support transit, while liberals push back against highway construction.
The best and worst state highway systems have common traits that have little to do with miles of roadway.
The state is slated to receive $3 billion for road and bridge upgrades from the new infrastructure law, with more than $500 million set aside for bridge replacement and repairs.
Transportation experts say that much of the funds in Biden’s big bill just go towards highways and a carbon-intensive status quo.
A new report finds that the wear and tear on our highway system has greater costs than were previously understood, implying a need for more transportation infrastructure investment, especially for road maintenance.
While urban crashes get more attention, approximately half of traffic fatalities occur on rural roads even though only about one-fifth of the population lives in these areas. Lawmakers are considering new safety measures.
Lawmakers have proposed $209 million of the multibillion-dollar bill for pollution and traffic initiatives in the Denver area that focus on marginalized groups impacted by the building of the highways decades ago.
The legislation would raise $3.8 billion over the next 10 years through increased fees on gas and online delivery purchases, but some are concerned that not enough would be invested in climate change proposals.