Skip to main content

How reauthorization can halt the highway harm

Transportation for America’s Fix it First principle is not just about fixing our crumbling roads before building new ones. We must also look at policies to fundamentally repair the communities that have been historically harmed and divided by the highway system and put a stop to any further damage.

T4A’s policies to rebuild local economies by reconnecting communities

Under our Fix it First principle, we want to fix the communities that have been harmed by highways in addition to avoiding any more damage from the status quo. This post will explain how to assist in reconnecting communities by:

  1. Combine the Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) and Neighborhood Access and Equity (NAE) Program grant programs and protect the effort to redesign or deconstruct outdated infrastructure that has hindered growth in low-income communities. Ensure funding levels are protected and increased to meet the demand to address transportation infrastructure, particularly highways and rail.
  2. Modernize transportation models for accuracy. Transportation agencies do not have the necessary tools to accurately assess the impacts of various highway project alternatives on traffic and development. 
  3. Include housing in programs like RCP/NAE to preserve affordability. Funding must be available for strategies like land trusts, property tax abatements, and the construction of affordable housing units to ensure current residents benefit from the improvements.
  4. Don’t allow new barriers to be created. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) should do a review of all of its regulations, procedures, and guidance documents, identify practices that lead to projects that create division and hardship to local mobility and economic development, and implement changes. 

How highways have harmed

The Interstate Highway System has played a large and detrimental role in dividing communities, making people more dependent on private cars to move around. In 1956, the Federal-Aid Highway Act, passed during the Eisenhower administration and established what would become the modern federal highway program for funding and building the current system. As a result of highways cutting through the heart of cities and white Americans taking advantage of moving to the suburbs, many marginalized groups saw the worst of the effects. 

While Eisenhower may have conceived of the program as a means to build roads to cities, in practice, the program more often than not built roads through cities.  Building highways through cities gave white and wealthy suburbanites access to urban centers while segregating themselves from communities of color. These communities were usually targeted intentionally by openly racist leaders, such as Sam Englehart in the South and Robert Moses in the North. The displacement and devastation from the construction are brazen and obvious in these neighborhoods. Pedestrian access has been disrupted and de-prioritized, air quality has worsened due to increased congestion, and opportunities for homes have been replaced by dangerous corridors with speeding cars. This upcoming reauthorization is a serious opportunity to not only repair the communities that have been most harmed by highways, but also stop any further damage the status quo has laid. 

Protect the reconnecting communities program

The Reconnecting Communities Pilot program (RCP) is a discretionary grant program that was authorized with $1 billion in the IIJA. The purpose of this program is in its name: to reconnect communities by removing or mitigating transportation facilities (such as highways) that have created barriers to community connectivity, access or economic development. Although the grant program is very new (and definitely has room for improvement), this program is a step in the right direction to repair the damage from disconnecting highways. 

RCP is an opportunity that should be continued in the upcoming reauthorization. The grant focuses on improving access to jobs, education, healthcare, nature, and recreation that have otherwise been hindered due to years of destruction from bad highway planning. By continuing to provide them discretionary funding opportunities, communities can begin to undo the damage of misguided highway expansion. Congress must protect this grant program to ensure the efforts to fix the damages of the past are given ample opportunity and priority for communities.

Modernizing transportation models

Although the RCP grants are a great funding opportunity, we need to remove systemic barriers that hold back these projects. To keep RCP projects moving forward, transportation agencies need better tools to accurately evaluate the impacts of highway project alternatives. Reliable and encompassing tools to measure these alternative projects are needed to highlight how RCP projects can have accurate impacts and benefits. These forecasting tools should be accounting for variables such as individual trips that shift to other corridors or that involve a different mode of transportation. However, because of outdated models that presume everyone drives, state DOTs are often the first to freak out at the thought of removing a portion of a highway and use the argument that traffic will explode. These models are holding back RCP projects and not painting the whole picture.

Traffic forecasting tools must account for individual trips that shift to other roadways or occur at different times of day, and can be made using other modes of transportation. In order to receive federal funds, transportation agencies should be held accountable for their projects’ results and be transparent about what traffic forecasting tools they are using and how they use them. True accountability includes making public the past accuracy (and inaccuracy) of highway agencies’ predictions versus ground truth, and providing clarity on what assumptions and inputs are being used in traffic forecasting models. This also means that, if highway project sponsors are going to claim benefits for air quality improvements from reduced delay, they need to account for emissions and pollution from increased travel volume from induced demand. Instead, they must clearly demonstrate that any environmental benefits are sustained over a long term period and result in lower pollution levels than the baseline.

Ultimately, the crux of our policy proposal is to eliminate obstacles for RCP projects and ensure the greatest accuracy within transportation models. In order to repair the damage of the past, we must also stop any hindrances that are in the way, which starts with accurate transportation traffic models.

Update the NAE program to include housing

The Neighborhood Access and Equity program was established under the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022 and provided $3 billion to improve connectivity in communities that have been impacted by divisive infrastructure. This same divisive infrastructure also disproportionately targeted communities of color and systematically removed existing housing and businesses deemed “substandard.” Instead of properly investing in these marginalized communities, the interstate system displaced nearly 475,000 households (over two million people) in less than twenty years. We cannot talk about mobility without integrating housing into the solution. 

Funding must be allowed for strategies like the construction of affordable housing to ensure that current residents can benefit from mobility improvements and reduce displacement. Leveraging additional housing in land reclaimed by RCP projects would provide those living in the community with options, and even opportunities for those originally displaced to return. This is imperative to ensure that the people who have suffered from the damage can reap the benefits of investment in their communities.

Don’t let new barriers be created!

The damage caused by disconnecting highways is not just a thing of the past—it continues very outwardly today. Our current approach towards infrastructure still consists of obsolete transportation policies, funding systems, and models that have their roots in the 1950s, which often directly harm vulnerable and marginalized communities. Harmful highway expansions are still being planned through or near low-income neighborhoods, like I-49 in Shreveport, Louisiana, which is destroying homes and churches. 

The system still does not prioritize moving people—only cars. This priority presents itself when state DOTs fail to consider local pedestrians, transit riders, and bicyclists when expanding corridors for the benefit of drivers from far-off neighborhoods. This ends in a never ending cycle of sprawling land use and displaced economic development in favor of storing and moving cars. This practice remains justified due to old practices never being retired and consistently disproven claims that congestion can be alleviated with just “one more lane”.

We need to halt the practices that got us here today. If we completely stop creating the same problems, then we would not have to keep repairing them! The RCP grant was authorized $1 billion over five years in the IIJA, which is a grand start to undoing the damage. But that investment is pathetic in comparison to the $154 billion that state and local governments spent on highways in 2021 alone. 

Currently, the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) regulations, procedures, and guidance documents only encourage the same old destructive practices. In order to stop the damage, these regulations need to be reviewed and updated—otherwise, we are stuck in the same loop. In reauthorization, we are calling for updates to the regulation and guidance determining how agencies use value of time, benefit-cost analyses, highway and road design guides, and project selection procedures. These processes guide how agencies design and build projects, and reforming them would address the root causes of the harms that transportation planning can still perpetuate today.   

Looking ahead

Decades of devastating practices have destroyed communities, especially the marginalized. But it’s not too late to undo the damage! Reauthorization is the chance to reconnect communities and allow a wider range of options to move around. Check out the rest of our reauthorization policies here. 

A need to rethink how we assess the health of our nation’s bridges

A year after the Key Bridge collapse, the National Transportation Safety Board is urging the owners of 68 bridges across the U.S. to assess their vulnerability to collisions. This moment also presents an opportunity to fundamentally rethink the state of the practice for assessing the health of our nation’s bridges and ensure agencies target taxpayer funds to the bridges that most need repair.

In the days after the Key Bridge collapse, questions were swirling on the state of repair of our bridges and what could be done differently to avoid a bridge collapse. But in the year since, the number of bridges classified as in poor condition has ticked down less than 1 percent according to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

This is not the first bridge collapse in recent history: The Silver Bridge collapse, between West Virginia and Ohio in 1967, brought about the development of the National Bridge Inspection Standards. After the 1980 Skyway Bridge collapse, infrastructure design was altered for future projects to create structural redundancy and fortification. But are our leaders motivated to take similarly bold action today

A year after the Key Bridge collapse, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is asking states to revisit collision vulnerability assessments of 68 bridges scattered across 19 states. They are also recommending that FHWA, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provide guidance to bridge owners on how to reduce the risk of vessel collision. Congress should require this, if the guidance is not forthcoming in the near term.

However there is a broader problem: several past bridge collapses were the result of problems undetected by bridge inspections or from DOTs failing to heed the problems identified. In the case of the 2007 I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis, the NTSB determined that the bridge failed because of design errors, subpar components, and bridge modifications that adversely affected bridge load capacity. These critical flaws were not caught by bridge inspections, and the NTSB recommended changes to the inspection regime.

In the 2013 I-5 Skagit, WA bridge collapse, the NTSB determined that repeated overhead bridge structure damage was due to low clearance truck strikes and no additional warnings or countermeasures to avoid future strikes. Nine of the 10 inspections before the collapse showed high load bridge strikes, but nothing was done in response to these repeated warnings.
 
In the 2017 I-85 bridge collapse in Atlanta, the NTSB determined flammable materials that had been improperly stored for five years under the bridge led to an excessive heat fire, impacting the structural integrity of the bridge. The presence of these flammable materials was overlooked by bridge inspectors and not included in their inspection.
 
Lastly, in the 2022 Pittsburgh Fern Hollow Bridge collapse, the NTSB determined poor quality inspections led to a failure to identify fracture-critical issues and incorrect load rating calculations. They also found insufficient oversight of the City of Pittsburgh’s bridge inspection program by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
 
These bridge inspection protocols heavily rely on visual inspection, theoretical calculations, limited training and recertification of inspectors, and “engineering judgment” to determine the bridge’s health. In the earlier examples, that approach undercompensated the bridge’s respective poor health and collapse vulnerability. In other cases, bridges are being weight restricted for fear of structural issues when that is not, in fact, the case. For example, 10 bridges with load restrictions in Nebraska were load tested in 2021 across three counties using load testing sensors to emulate loads and assess the bridge’s response. As a result, six of those bridges had their restrictions removed. The standard visual inspection found conditions to be worse than they really were.
 
We are identifying bridges in need of immediate repair while not recognizing critical needs elsewhere, meaning we are not targeting funding correctly. This is all happening while agencies are spending funds on new roads and bridges that further stretch our resources.
 
Using technology like load testing sensors (which are widely available and relatively inexpensive) can more accurately assess and identify structural issues invisible to the naked eye. Pairing visual inspections with frequent data collection via sensors can better identify bridge health issues and result in proactive maintenance This fix it first approach would lead to few-to-no bridges in poor condition and no bridge collapses. Furthermore, there is a need to support robust and frequent bridge inspector training, to keep current with the required skillsets and tools to assess bridge health. Looking ahead to the next surface transportation reauthorization, it’s not just about securing more funding—it’s about getting more from every dollar. The next federal transportation bill must set a new standard, prioritizing modern tools for accurate assessments, diligently trained inspector workforce, and a fix-it-first approach to ensure resources go where they’re needed most.