Moving Forward or Sliding Backward?

Three years ago, I wrote Shifting Gears, a discussion of the traditional ideas deeply embedded within the transportation profession and an exploration of the potential for a shift toward a more sustainable way of thinking. I was relatively optimistic at the time (or so readers told me) that professional thinking was shifting in notable and promising ways. In the years since, my assessment has evolved: while I continue to see signs that the profession is embracing new ideas, I see little evidence that it is letting go of the old ones.

The old way of thinking starts with the idea that cars mean freedom, enabling us to go where we want when we want. This idea is tied to the idea that speed equates to efficiency, neglecting the implications for safety. In this worldview, solving traffic congestion, which reduces speed for cars, becomes the focus of transportation policy. The prioritization of car travel also affects decisions about the allocation of physical space, hence ever-wider highways and abundant parking. And if more road capacity does not solve congestion, then new technologies like autonomous vehicles and flying cars surely will. These ideas explain the transportation system we have today, a system that moves a mind-boggling volume of people and goods but whose limits are more evident by the day.

In writing my book, I chose to focus on the ideas themselves, not on who within the profession was responsible for what ideas. I was not interested in a “blame game” in which problematic ideas are attributed to specific factions within the profession. Some factions do tend to adhere more strongly than others to the traditional ideas (e.g., engineers more than planners, state DOTs more than cities). But these patterns are not absolute, and generalizations can be inaccurate and unfair.

Besides, from a political standpoint, transportation has traditionally evaded the crippling partisanship of so many other policy realms. For the last three decades and more, Democrats and Republicans have largely agreed on an approach that continues to focus on the roadway system but provides some support for transit, walking, and biking. Both sides of the aisle buy into the traditional ideas, but they also have seen some value in new ideas. Federal transportation policy, as articulated by Congress in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021 (BIL), reflects this commitment to the old way of thinking while making room for some new thinking.

Five years after BIL, however, we have slid seven decades back at the federal level. Through its rhetoric and its actions, the current administration has fully embraced the mindset of 1950s transportation policy while outright rejecting all ideas not directly in support of car dominance. The examples are abundant, including these from 2026:

• Freedom: In January, US DOT Secretary Sean Duffy stated in a post on X that “Buying a new car is FREEDOM.” In September, Duffy finalized the “Freedom Means Affordable Cars” initiative that loosens fuel economy standards and eliminates what the administration calls a “backdoor EV mandate.”
• Speed: In July, the US became the only country in the United Nations to vote against a road safety declaration calling for a halving of road traffic deaths and injuries between 2021 and 2030, in part by reducing speeds. A US representative reportedly argued that it represented “top-down environmental restrictions on freedom of mobility.”
• Congestion: Secretary Duffy launched the “Freedom to Drive” initiative in April stating that “gridlock and congestion have no place in the Golden Age of Transportation.” The goal is to “eliminate endless traffic jams and ensure you spend less [time] sitting wasting away in gridlock.”
• Space: In July, Duffy sent a letter to congress that calls for the prioritization of motor vehicle travel over bicycle lanes arguing that “When vehicle throughput is sacrificed to accommodate bicycle lanes, the increased congestion can lead to longer travel times and wasted fuel” and other negative outcomes. The letter instead calls for funding to expand the Interstate system and build “big and beautiful infrastructure.”
• Technology: Although the administration is impeding electric vehicles, it is doubling-down on many other technologies. In March, Duffy unveiled the Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing Integration Pilot Program, claiming that this technology will “redefine personal travel.” In announcing the Automated Vehicles National Strategy in September, he described automated vehicles as an example of “exciting new technologies” that have “exciting promise” in “fundamentally reshaping how people move for the better.”

The backslide to a purely traditional way of thinking about the solutions to our transportation problems is evident at other levels of government as well. In 2025, for example, the Governor of Idaho signed legislation that prohibits the narrowing of roads and the building of bicycle and pedestrian facilities except in specific areas, such as around parks and schools. In May 2026, voters in Highland Park, a suburb of Dallas, chose to pull out of the region’s transit district, reflecting the sentiment that putting money into transit—as opposed to cars—is not worth it. Even in California, the idea that congestion is a problem to be solved through highway expansion still dominates spending decisions.

What does give me hope for the future is the fact that most metropolitan areas are looking beyond traditional ways of thinking. Despite the limited federal support—politically and financially—for modes other than driving, cities such as Denver continue to shift space from cars toward transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. They are implementing programs to reduce speeds (using, for example, automated cameras) to improve safety for all users of the system, as in Seattle. New York City implemented a congestion pricing program that has done more to improve traffic flow than decades of roadway expansion! Saint Paul and other cities are approaching new technologies like “robotaxis” with caution. In light of these efforts, I am cautiously optimistic that, despite the federal backslide, the profession will continue to move forward toward a way of thinking that prioritizes freedom from the car, leading to a more balanced and sustainable transportation system.

Just how easy that will be remains to be seen. The US DOT is only one of many players that shape the transportation system, albeit a particularly powerful one. Through policy changes and funding cuts, Duffy and the US DOT have delivered a substantial blow to the cause of sustainable transportation, stifling at least some of the momentum observed just a few years ago. Restarting programs will be hard, even with support from the top. Some programs, such as the Reconnecting Communities program, designed to undo some of the damage done to urban neighborhoods by decades of highway construction, may never return. The impacts are bipartisan, affecting red and blue states alike.

When I am in an especially optimistic mood, I wonder about the possibility that the recent federal backslide could re-energize the shift toward a new way of thinking about transportation. As efforts to create a more sustainable transportation system come under attack, its proponents may become even more determined, finding inventive new ways to build support for moving forward. The public, too, may see more clearly the value of the investments they have already made in transit systems and bike lanes. High gas prices and the impacts of extreme weather events could very well bolster their support for a less car-dependent transportation system.

Here’s what I know: Solving our transportation problems requires a shift to a new way of thinking about transportation, not a return to the ideas of the past.

Susan Handy is Founding Director of the National Center for Sustainable Transportation at UC Davis and Professor, Environmental Science and Policy. Her research focuses on the relationships between transportation and land use, particularly the impact of land use on travel behavior, and on strategies for reducing automobile dependence.