By Nicholas Thoreson-Brown and Steven MufsonThe National Review StaffMarch 23, 2017, 3:24 p.m.
Updated March 24, 2017 10:53 a.m., by Christina WilliamsWhen the federal government announced a $20 billion plan to fight chronic congestion, a number of people immediately jumped on the bandwagon.
The National Center for Policy Analysis, a Washington-based think tank, ran a report claiming the program was a “gimmick” aimed at helping states to “improve public safety.”
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) said the program is an “unneeded waste of taxpayer dollars.”
But even though the report was based on faulty data and was largely ignored, the plan did make it onto the federal radar, as President Donald Trump continued to use the program as a tool to get around rules designed to combat traffic congestion.
A lot of people, the president has said, think we’re going to have some big infrastructure plan coming up and it’s going to be just so much bigger and more complicated than it needs to be.
“It’s an old story.
It’s been going on for a long time.
We have some of the highest-capacity roads in the world, but it is not as efficient as it needs be, according to a 2009 paper in the journal Transportation Research Part D titled “Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Interstate Highway System: A Case Study.”
The paper was written by researchers from the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, who said the plan is an over-reliance on federal money.
The study found that the federal program actually did save lives, even in a time of declining traffic congestion, by increasing vehicle miles traveled by 6.5 percent compared to the baseline scenario.
The analysis looked at the impact of the federal highway program on the number of fatalities and injuries caused by highway crashes, the number and severity of injuries caused, the types of fatalities caused, and the number, severity and types of deaths.
It found that in an average year, federal transportation projects would have saved more than 1,000 lives and saved about $5 billion in direct and indirect costs, the researchers said.
The report also found that highway congestion and air pollution caused a significant number of deaths, and that the program helped to slow the growth of the country’s carbon emissions.
But the study also found there are a number ways to fight congestion.
It noted that there are some ways to reduce traffic, and some of those include building new roads, using alternative forms of transportation, reducing congestion, increasing the speed limits on roads, and improving traffic flow.
The NEA also cited a study done by the Department of Transportation that found the federal plan would not result in any significant reduction in traffic congestion over the long term.
The plan has a number goals, but the NEA said the goal of preventing congestion should not be limited to reducing congestion.
The NEA noted that some of these goals are unrealistic, and there is no evidence that the programs would lead to significant reductions in congestion.
The paper also noted that a lot of the money is going to states that are in poor financial shape, which can often be tied to the cost of repairing roads.
This can make for expensive repairs.
The NAIC report, in turn, suggested that the government should take a look at the “economic and social costs” of using federal transportation funds.
The Department of Homeland Security said that a study by the Federal Highway Administration found that reducing congestion is a good thing.
The report said that the use of federal money is “a great way to help keep our roads safe.”
The study also noted, however, that congestion can be an “expensive way to achieve many of the goals” of congestion mitigation.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which has been involved in the program for the last decade, did not respond to a request for comment.