States team up to defend green transportation projects targeted by Trump
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Trading highway expansion for buses
Advertisement
Although Colorado wasn't among the seven charter members of the Clean Rides Network, a policy enacted there set the framework for one of its most ambitious goals.
In 2021, Gov. Jared Polis committed to a dramatic reduction in Colorado's greenhouse gas emissions and employed a novel approach to accelerate the timeline. Whenever the state's transportation department commits money to a large-scale project that increases vehicle traffic such as a new highway, it must also pursue a corresponding project to offset the environmental harms.
Two major highway expansion projects were canceled because of the policy, said Matt Frommer of the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project. The group advocated for the change.
Colorado used the savings to expand an intercity bus service that has soared in popularity for urban residents and tourists traveling to ski resorts.
Polis' vision lined up with the multimodal transportation aims under the $1.1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure law Biden signed that year. In the final months of Biden's administration, the city of Denver won a $150 million federal grant to build a rapid transit bus line along one of its busiest corridors.
Frommer, a transportation and land use policy manager, said there are fears that states will now have to pursue projects like that on their own.
Advertisement
'If your state cares about climate change, you need to take the reins and step up and direct your transportation funds to projects that are going to reduce emissions,' Frommer said. 'We may not be able to rely on the federal government to put that policy in place or to really help you in many ways.'
Colorado's approach moves east
Minnesota followed Colorado's lead and adopted a similar rule to offset greenhouse emissions. Other states that are part of the network are pushing proposals this session.
The Maryland House recently passed its version of the Colorado law, and Senate sponsor Shelly Hettleman said she's cautiously optimistic it will win final passage before lawmakers adjourn.
In trying to persuade her colleagues, Hettleman has focused less on the environmental benefits than what she sees as economic ones. A study commissioned by the Colorado transportation department projected up to $40 billion in savings through improved air quality, road safety and reduced traffic congestion, among other things.
Lawmakers in the Clean Rides states of Illinois and Massachusetts have advanced similar proposals, but they've encountered resistance from some business leaders and advocates for road construction.
'This is another ill-advised piece of legislation, not based upon science, that will defer needed improvements to our crumbling transportation infrastructure in Illinois,' said Mike Sturino, president and CEO of the Illinois Road and Transportation Builders Association. 'Commuters will have to wait for improvements to our existing interstate system, as this bill would delay addressing unsafe conditions on our roads and bridges.'
Is there any interest from red states?
Although most of the state leaders who have pushed alternative transportation options have been Democrats, the Clean Rides Network said more conservative states have shown interest in some of the topics, too.
Advertisement
Just as Colorado's anticipated cost savings helped spur legislation in Maryland, economic concerns continue to be foremost in the minds of residents, with some studies showing that transportation ranks second to housing in consumer costs.
'Forget about the cost of eggs. It's never been more expensive to drive a car,' said Miguel Moravec with the nonprofit climate think tank RMI, which created a calculator to help states project the money they could save through policies that reduce emissions.
Virginia employs a scale that scores potential transportation projects based on factors such as safety, congestion relief, and environmental impacts.
Utah launched an ambitious transit plan for the rapidly growing state, while Montana implemented land use and zoning reforms that made cities more walkable.
Muhammed Patel, senior transportation advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council in Chicago, said states are at least rethinking some of their policy priorities.
'We do live luckily in a country where states have authority over their own transportation systems,' Patel said. 'There's flexibility innately built in.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump debanking order will have limited impact on crypto, experts say
Last week, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing bank regulators to rescind guidance that could lead to 'politicised or unlawful debanking.' Crypto businesses, and even some prominent conservatives — including the president himself — have alleged they were denied or lost access to bank accounts at the behest of politically-motivated, Biden-era regulators. But last week's executive order, entitled, 'Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,' won't do much for crypto businesses that fear they've been locked out of the traditional financial system, according to experts who spoke to DL News. That's because the order does little to root out 'reputation risk.' The term refers to regulators' ability to dissuade banks from engaging supposedly controversial customers, such as pornographers, firearms manufacturers, payday lenders, and crypto companies. Critics of the practice say that banks should only consider objective criteria, such as a customer's financial risk, when deciding whether to offer someone a checking account. Guidance documents and manuals 'This is going to make people happy who have been asking for it, but it's not clear how much good it's going to do them,' Dru Stevenson, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, told DL News. The executive order directs bank regulators to remove the use of reputation risk 'or equivalent concepts' that could result in 'politicized or unlawful debanking' from their 'guidance documents, manuals, and other materials.' But it isn't clear that examples of debanking were motivated by politics, according to Stevenson. 'It's not clear to me that they couldn't still allow for reputational risk that would apply to, say, an AI company, because that's not exactly a political issue or something that's unlawful,' he said. And reputation risk can have a downstream effect on banks' profits. 'If you have risk averse investors at one of the gigantic pension funds, or mutual funds, and they find out that Wachovia has gone gung ho about crypto, that might be a reason for them to switch to a more conservative bank,' Stevenson said. Moreover, banks were always free to ignore guidance documents and manuals according to Stevenson. As such, removing references to reputation risk from such documents will likely have little practical effect. 'If you're an agency, you can't go into court and say, 'This person violated our guidance document,'' he said. 'You have to show that they violated the statute or that they violated a codified regulation that went through notice and comment rulemaking.' Management reports Julie Hill, the dean of the University of Wyoming's law school, noted that Trump-appointed bank regulators have already said they will stop using reputation risk. While the regulators have new leadership, they are largely staffed by the same people who served under the Biden administration, Hill added. And reputation risk isn't the only tool regulators can use to pressure banks to reject certain customers. Anti-money laundering laws are one reason banks often reject customers, according to Hill. 'The vast, vast majority of suspicious activity reports don't lead to any sort of follow up, let alone any sort of enforcement,' she told DL News. Moreover, banks are not allowed to tell customers that their account was flagged for suspicious activity. 'We have a situation where banks had to file one or more SARs, and they decided it's just not worth it, we should debank, because we don't want our regulators upset with us, and it's getting expensive to file all these SARs.' Another tool at regulators' disposal: management reports. 'If a regulator suggests to a bank, 'We think this is risky, maybe you want to stop doing it' [but] it's not really that risky, banks might do it anyway,' Hill said, 'because their management rating will get downgraded and then that impacts all sorts of things, including their capital requirements.' Those ratings are also secret, according to Hill. 'Anytime you see a really broad authority with very little limit, and then also a lot of secrecy or lack of transparency about how regulators or banks implement that, you're likely to set up claims for debanking,' she said. Banks' responsibility The executive order also directs the regulators to identify financial institutions that had any 'past or current, formal or informal, policies or practices that require, encourage, or otherwise influence … politicized or unlawful debanking.' Finding examples of politically-motivated debanking could be straightforward if the orders came from federal regulators, according to Hill. 'It's a much harder thing if what you think happened is the banks, for whatever reason, just decided to debank people for political reasons, unconnected with risk or profit or whatever,' she said. 'There's a real question about how we think regulators are going to figure that out and whether we think there's any duty on the bank to voluntarily disclose it.' Whatever the effect of the executive order, both professors agreed that a new administration could reinstate the use of reputation risk unilaterally. 'It kind of highlights how unsticky changes made by the executive branch are when it comes to discretionary enforcement,' Hill said. 'This is one of those things that can change from administration to administration.' Stevenson agreed. 'If we ever get to have other presidents, the next president can just do another executive order and put it all back, like, overnight,' Stevenson said. Aleks Gilbert is DL News' New York-based DeFi correspondent. You can contact him at aleks@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Intercept
34 minutes ago
- The Intercept
Veterans Are 'Guinea Pigs' in Trump's First National Abortion Ban Experiment
Ash Wallis knows she likely wouldn't survive another pregnancy. Doctors said as much years earlier after she suffered a pulmonary embolism following a miscarriage, and got a second blood clot. Getting pregnant again isn't a risk she is willing or able to take. 'I have two sons,' said Wallis. 'I don't want to leave them motherless.' Wallis, 40, begged her health care provider to give her an IUD — her best chance at preventing another pregnancy and protecting her life. But her provider, the Department of Veterans Affairs, refused to cover the procedure. Despite three years of service in the Army, Wallis was forced to pay out of pocket at a local clinic. 'The risks of me getting pregnant and there being a significant health issue were too much risk for me to gamble on,' she said. Access to reproductive care and abortion has long been a problem for those who rely on VA care. But a policy change by the Trump administration stands to make reproductive health for service members and veterans even worse. Last week, the administration posted a proposed rule for VA facilities that would severely narrow access to abortion — eliminating exceptions for health, rape, and incest, and only allowing the procedure in situations deemed to threaten the life of the mother. The rule would also ban any counseling for abortion through the VA. The proposed policy now enters a mandatory 30-day comment period, after which it can go into effect. Experts told The Intercept that the rule change will have devastating consequences for the millions of service members and veterans reliant on health care through the VA, as well as their families. 'It's the worst-case scenario,' said Rachel Fey, vice president of policy and strategic partnerships at Power to Decide, a nonprofit focused on reproductive and sexual health. The Department of Veterans Affairs has long excluded abortion care and abortion counseling from its medical benefits package, with a narrow exception for the 'life of the mother.' That changed in 2022 when the Biden administration, recognizing the danger posed to veterans and service members by the Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, instituted a new rule allowing for abortion counseling and abortion care in an expanded list of circumstances. It's this Biden-era change that is under attack by the Trump administration. The administration describes the proposed policy shift as a return to form. 'Prior to the Biden Administration's politically motivated change in 2022, federal law and longstanding precedent across Democrat and Republican administrations prevented VA from providing abortions and abortion counseling,' wrote Gary Kunich, a Veterans Affairs spokesperson, in a statement to the Intercept. Fey and other reproductive health experts had anticipated the Trump administration would institute an abortion ban at the VA. But they told The Intercept that this version is particularly draconian considering the dramatic fall-off in abortion access following the Dobbs decision. 'This new policy would be one of the strictest abortion bans in the country, and for veterans living in the 12 states that ban abortion, it would further close off what may be their only opportunity to access urgently needed abortion care,' said Liz McCaman Taylor, senior federal policy counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, in a statement. 'For veterans living in these states, they may now be forced to carry pregnancies to term even if they were raped or the pregnancy puts their health in jeopardy.' The proposed rule would 'reinstate the full exclusion on abortions and abortion counseling.' Unlike under the Biden rule, which allowed for abortion counseling and abortion care to protect the health of the mother or in cases of rape and incest, the new proposed rule only includes a vague, narrow exception for 'life of the mother.' 'For the avoidance of doubt, the proposed rule would make clear that the exclusion for abortion does not apply 'when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term,'' wrote the administration in a summary of the draft proposal. However, in a potentially complicating line, the administration wrote: 'Taken together, claims in the prior administration's rule that abortions throughout pregnancy are needed to save the lives of pregnant women are incorrect.' Jaclyn Dean, director of congressional relations, reproductive health, at the National Partnership for Women & Families, said that the lack of medical clarity around when doctors are allowed to intervene is going to cost lives. 'If I'm a doctor for the VA,' said Dean, 'I'm very confused about what I'm legally allowed to do.' Fey said her organization, Power to Decide, was 'not aware of any circumstances' where the VA covered abortion care under the life exception in place before the Biden rule. 'There was always sort of supposed to be this very, very narrow life exception, but similar to what's happening now in the post-Dobbs world, we're seeing that those life exceptions don't work in practice,' she said. Lindsay Church, executive director of Minority Veterans of America, said the counseling ban adds another layer of risk because providers are prevented from even discussing the option of abortion until it may be too late. 'Good luck if you get to a place where you're dying,' said Church, 'because you can't get abortion counseling before that. And that, to me, is insulting. Not only that, but it could have deadly consequences.' Read Our Complete Coverage The counseling ban also means veterans or active-duty service members referred to the Veterans Affairs administration for care after being sexually assaulted can't discuss abortion as an option with their provider. 'We already know that women veterans experience Military Sexual Trauma at alarming rates, and many of us continue to fight battles long after our service ends,' said Stephanie Gattas, founder of the Pink Berets, which offers support for women veterans struggling with PTSD, military sexual assault, and other mental health issues. Over 8,000 service members, who can also be referred to the VA for care, reported being sexually assaulted last year. And nearly 500 people reported being sexually assaulted while on a VA campus last year, according to Church. Both numbers are likely a severe undercount. 'The military community is wrought with sexual violence,' said Church. 'Now, if you get raped and become pregnant … because of assault at the Department of Veterans Affairs, they won't help you.' Sylvia Andersh, a former service member who worked at Veterans Affairs hospitals as a nurse, called the lack of exceptions for rape 'cruel.' 'My faith in humanity has been quite tested with the fact that they're willing to blatantly hurt women,' said Andersh. For Wallis, who was sexually assaulted while serving in the military, the lack of rape exceptions is especially troubling. 'It feels like being spit in my face,' she said. 'I wrote a check up to and including my life for this country, and I'm not provided equal access to care,' Wallis said. Wallis also worries that this new policy could increase suicidal ideation among service members. 'An unexpected pregnancy, whether it's due to rape, incest, or contraceptive failure, doesn't matter what the cause is,' she said, 'it increases suicidal ideation, and in the lack of access to care, you add that in, and that risk increases further.' The biggest impact is going to fall on veterans and service members living in states with abortion bans, experts told The Intercept. The Department of Veterans Affairs is the largest integrated health care system in the United States, serving 2 million women veterans, over 400,000 of whom live in states with abortion bans. 'We were living in a much different world the last time this total ban was in effect.' Though the Trump administration insists the policy change would be a return to standard VA practice, Taylor, of Center for Reproductive Rights, points out that the landscape has changed following the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision. 'We were living in a much different world the last time this total ban was in effect. This is the first time there has been a total abortion ban in VA health care facilities since Roe v. Wade was overturned,' said Taylor. 'Before Roe fell, if a veteran couldn't get an abortion at a VA health care facility, they could seek one elsewhere in their state. Now, abortion is banned in many states, and over 100 clinics have closed, meaning veterans living in those states will be totally out of options.' Wallis said she feels as if the administration is testing how far it can restrict access to care, pointing to the abortion ban and new restrictions on gender-affirming care at the VA. 'We're the guinea pigs they want to test what they're able to do to the general public,' she said. 'I truly feel like they're testing what they want to do with the rest of the country on us, and it's scary to me.'
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Biden admin scrapped ‘best-qualified' standard for air traffic controller academy, docs show
The Biden administration quietly eliminated the top testing threshold for the highest-performing applicants seeking to become air traffic controllers, an internal slide seen by The Post confirms. In 2023, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials scrapped the previous 'best qualified' tier for candidates who scored 85% or above on the Air Traffic Skills Assessment (ATSA) exam in favor of a 'well qualified' threshold for applicants who scored at least 80%. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy revealed the change to The Post's Miranda Devine on the latest episode of 'Pod Force One,' out now. 'They lowered the standard from 85% to 80% to be best qualified … to get these young people into the academy,' Duffy said, referring to the FAA training school in Oklahoma City. 4 An internal slide shows that the Biden administration approved the ATSA tier change by late 2023. FAA 'What happened was, they had a substantial washout rate, 30%-plus,' Duffy went on, 'because they couldn't do the work.' Since the Trump administration took office, Duffy claimed, 'we're getting the best scores in the academy first.' 'In two months after you take the entrance exam, we're getting you into the academy. And what we're doing is, if you're at 98% on that test [or] 94 [%], you are going to take the top slots as slots become available.' Once air traffic control candidates graduate from the academy, Duffy said, 'it takes them, depending on where they're at, if they're in a not-so-busy airspace, they can be certified in a year.' 4 Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy knocked his predecessor for changes made to ATSA tiers. Ron Sachs – CNP for NY Post Under Duffy's watch, the FAA has instituted a revised version of the prior ATSA grading system Applicants are now separated into four tiers: 'Best-qualified' for scores of 90% or more, 'well-qualified' for scores between 85% and 89%, 'qualified' for scores between 70% and 84%, and 'not referred' for scores under 70%. The Biden administration's adjusted standards considered applicants 'well-qualified' for scores of 80% and above, 'qualified' for scores between 70% and 79.9%, and 'not referred' for scores under 70%. 4 Pete Buttigieg has stressed that the standards to become an air traffic controller have not changed. Getty Images A spokesperson for former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg underscored that overall standards to become certified as an air traffic controller did not change while he was in office. 'Whether you call them 'qualified' or 'best-qualified' or 'well-qualified,' there is still a minimum standard of qualification, and that line hasn't changed,' the spokesperson said. 'And that test hasn't changed.' 'To be abundantly clear: we did not change the rigorous standard for becoming a certified air traffic controller,' Buttigieg wrote on X on Feb. 2. 'Those claiming otherwise are mistaken or lying. We did increase funding & training, and grew the ATC workforce after years of declining numbers, including under Trump.' Duffy also contended that the Biden administration's system took so long to sift through applicants that 'if … you take the test, you pass it, you got an 82%, it might take you two years to get your seat in the academy. 'Well, if you're 22 years old, you're gonna go find a different job. You're not gonna stick around.' 4 Officials are working to address a workforce shortage of air traffic controllers that has vexed airports across the country. Federal Aviation Administration Since the Jan. 29 mid-air collision over Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport that killed 67 people aboard a regional jet and a Black Hawk helicopter, the Department of Transportation has been scrambling to address a workforce shortage of air traffic controllers. More than 2,000 air traffic controllers are expected to join the FAA this year as part of the agency's workforce plan, with 8,900 projected to be hired by the end of 2028.
