Foundations
Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Surface Transportation News: The Strong Performance of Express Toll Lanes
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 8 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news on Nov. 6, 2025:* * *
Surface Transportation News: The strong performance of express toll lanes
Plus: U.S. traffic congestion at record high levels, reforming environmental litigation, and more.
By Robert Poole, Director of Transportation Policy
In this issue:
* Express toll lanes' strong performance
* Bicycles, cars, and economic productivity
* U.S. traffic congestion at record high levels
* Reforming environmental litigation
* Feds ease off driverless truck regulation
* Transit shifts to light rail ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 8 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news on Nov. 6, 2025: * * * Surface Transportation News: The strong performance of express toll lanes Plus: U.S. traffic congestion at record high levels, reforming environmental litigation, and more. By Robert Poole, Director of Transportation Policy In this issue: * Express toll lanes' strong performance * Bicycles, cars, and economic productivity * U.S. traffic congestion at record high levels * Reforming environmental litigation * Feds ease off driverless truck regulation * Transit shifts to light railand bus rapid transit
* News Notes
* Quotable Quote
Express Toll Lanes' Strong Performance
In news that I missed when it came out earlier this year, Fitch Ratings has increased its investment-grade ratings on toll-financed express toll lanes (ETLs). In its June 24, 2025 "Peer Review of Managed Lanes" report, Fitch explains why it increased the ratings on seven of the 13 express toll lane projects that it has been tracking since they were first implemented (or in the case of two that are not yet in operation, since they had progressed far enough for data on their corridor and planned capacity being available).
The ETLs whose ratings Fitch increased are as follows:
* I-77 Mobility Partners (NC): from BBB to BBB+
* LBJ Infrastructure Group: LLC (TX): from BBB to BBB+
* 95 Express Lanes LLC (VA): from BBB to BBB+
* Riverside County Transportation Commission (SR-91): from BBB+ to A
* Plenary Roads Denver LLC (CO): from BBB- to BBB
* NTE Mobility Partners (TX): from BBB to BBB+
* Colorado HPTE (C-470): from BBB to BBB+
Two high-rated express toll lanes projects that were not upgraded this year were already at the top of the list:
* Orange County Transportation Authority (SR-91): AA-
* Texas DOT (I-35E): A-
The world's first express toll lanes, SR-91 Express Lanes in Orange County, opened to traffic in December 1995, so their 30th anniversary is coming up. (I was present at both the ground-breaking and the ribbon-cutting, and I still have my hard hat.) At that time, popular opinion and media coverage were both skeptical: either so few people would pay to avoid congestion that the project would fail, or so many would crowd in, resulting in congestion. The same objections were raised when the Florida Department of Transportation opened its first ETLs (on I-95 in Miami in 2008). Express toll lanes have come a long way since then.
The Fitch report provides a lot of interesting details on these projects. Of the 13 that are in operation, six are managed by various government entities, and the other seven were developed and are operated under long-term public-private partnerships (P3s). Appendix D provides details under 10 headings for all 13. One of those details is the pricing policy. Those financed and operated as P3s are listed as using "revenue maximization" as their pricing policy, which the not-yet operational Hampton Roads project (a public-sector project) also plans to use. All the other government-run projects are listed as using "Blend of throughput and revenue maximization."
With more than 60 ETL projects in operation, the largest fraction of them are conversions of HOV lanes, sometimes (as in Miami) with the addition of a second lane each way. These conversion projects are not financed by toll revenues, and since most have low capital costs compared to toll-financed ETLs that involve building new lanes, they can often cover their operating and maintenance costs from their toll revenue.
The investment-grade ratings of the revenue-financed express toll lanes reflect the public-private partnership companies' careful selection of very congested corridors in large metro areas. The few (so far) government-sponsored toll-financed express toll lanes appear to have followed the P3 companies' lead in selecting similar corridors for their projects.
Bicycles, Cars, and Economic Productivity
The Economist remains my favorite source for worldwide news and analysis. But sometimes, its reporters let their opinions get in the way of facts. A case in point is a two-page article, "Four Wheels Good, Two Wheels Better" in the Oct. 11 edition. The author glibly asserts that electric bikes are transforming travel in European cities (and Montreal) and portrays this as very positive for cities and their residents.
This portrayal misses two very significant points. One key is access to jobs, and the other is how mobility relates to the economic productivity of metro areas. Since the audience for this newsletter is overwhelmingly the United States, my focus here is on access to jobs in U.S. metro areas.
For nearly a decade, the University of Minnesota's Center for Transportation Studies (CTS) has published annual "Access to Destinations" reports, using data from the 50 largest U.S. metro areas. Their individual tables focus on the extent to which a given mode (auto, bike, transit) enables users to reach a fraction of available jobs within a given time period. I have not been able to find a CTS table that directly compares access to jobs by auto, bicycle, and transit. My Reason Foundation colleague Marc Scribner crunched the numbers from CTS's 2023 data to enable direct comparisons between modes.
For all 50 metro areas, the average results for jobs reachable within 30 minutes are: cars 42.2%, bikes 2.1%, and transit 0.9%. In 50 minutes, cars reach 84% of jobs, while bikes reach 5.4% and transit 4.5%. The same general pattern prevails in the large majority of the 50 metro areas. For example, Kansas City residents can reach 60% of jobs by car in 30 minutes, 1.7% of jobs via bike, and 0.5% via transit. In Minneapolis, the comparable numbers for 30 minutes are 49% via car in 30 minutes, 2% by bike, and 0.8% by transit. And within 50 minutes in Minneapolis, it's 87% of jobs by car, 5.2% by bike, and 3.9% by transit. The good news for cyclists is that in the large majority of metro areas, biking beats transit for access to jobs. However, bikes are in a distant second place after cars.
One of the most important functions of a large metro area is to provide a huge array of job opportunities for people with a very wide array of skills and experience. For this to work well, a transportation system needs to enable this for a large majority of its population. That is not possible with concepts like the "15-minute city" beloved by some urban planners.
Among those who have educated me on the relationship between transportation and urban area productivity is former World Bank urban planner, Alain Bertaud (now at NYU's Marron Institute). In his book Order Without Design: How Markets Shape Cities (MIT Press, 2018), Bertaud explains the relationship between an urban area's economic productivity and its transportation system.
The underlying idea is that a large urban area makes possible a far greater number of high-value connections between potential employers and potential employees. Bertaud and a number of other economists have pointed out and quantified the relationship between access to jobs (as in the CTS studies) and the urban area's economic productivity. As Bertaud puts it, "The effective size of the labor market depends on travel time and the spatial distribution of jobs." The ability to reach a large number of jobs in as short a time as possible is the key factor in the increased economic productivity of an urban area.
One of the first studies to quantify this effect was by Remy Prud'homme and Chang-Woon Lee (Urban Studies, Oct. 1999). They found that, for a sample of 22 French metro areas, a 10% increase in how far one can travel in 25 minutes increased the productivity of a metro area by 1.3%. Others who have done similar studies include Robert Cervero, David Hartgen, Alan Pisarski, and Steven Polzin. In a large 2012 policy study of potential transportation improvements in the metro areas of southeast Florida, I proposed and analyzed a three-county express toll lanes network. I drew on the above research to estimate the economic productivity gains from my estimated reductions in vehicle hours of travel. Based on computer modeling done for me by the regional planning agency, I estimated the projected increase in gross regional product was 0.5%, amounting to $3.5 billion per year.
These economic benefits will not be generated by increasing the commute share of bicycles and transit, at least in the large majority of U.S. urban areas. European governments can dream on about carless cities, but at the expense of continued economic stagnation.
" return to top
U.S. Traffic Congestion at Record High Levels
The Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) has released its 2025 Urban Mobility Report, which analyzes traffic congestion nationwide. The study includes data from 494 urban areas. The headline message is that urban roadway travel has more than recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic years and, as of 2024, traffic congestion reached the highest levels ever recorded.
But travel has changed significantly since the pandemic. Hybrid (home/workplace) working and the ongoing increase in online purchases with commercial delivery have changed when and where travel occurs--but have not led to a reduction in congestion. And due to the latter, truck congestion is 19% worse than in 2019, compared with total vehicle congestion being up only 10%.
Here are a few summary statistics to give you an overview of the five-year change between 2019 and 2024.
* * *
Average delay per auto commuter ... +17%
Travel time index ... +3 points (from 1.23 to 1.26)
Overall travel delay (billions of hours) ... +10%
Truck congestion cost ... +43%
Overall congestion cost ... +16%
* * *
The TTI report also provides graphs illustrating the reduced morning peak and a significantly increased evening peak in vehicle travel, along with an increasing weekend peak in the mid-afternoon.
The report's second section, beginning on page 45, consists of numerous tables showing congestion specifics for very large, large, medium, and small urban areas. These tables generally compare data from 2024 with 2023. Here are a few examples from the top five urban areas in each group.
* * *
Person Hours of Delay Per Commuter
... 2024 ... 2023
Very Large (15 areas) ... ...
Los Angeles ... 137 ... 131
San Francisco ... 134 ... 132
New York ... 99 ... 97
Miami ... 93 ... 92
Washington, DC ... 90 ... 89
Large (32 areas) ... ...
Riverside (CA) ... 95 ... 88
San Jose ... 94 ... 93
Nashville ... 83 ... 82
Denver ... 76 ... 72
Minneapolis ... 73 ... 68
Medium (33 areas) ... ...
Honolulu ... 81 ... 79
Bridgeport ... 77 ... 73
Baton Rouge ... 68 ... 67
Charleston ... 68 ... 66
New Orleans ... 68 ... 59
* * *
Annual Total Metro Area Congestion Cost ($B)
... 2024 ... 2023
Very Large (15) ... ...
Los Angeles ... $29.5 ... $27.6
San Francisco ... $7.1 ... $6.8
New York ... $24.2 ... $22.9
Chicago ... $11.8 ... $10.0
Washington ... $6.2 ... $5.9
Large (32) ... ...
Riverside ... $3.7 ... $3.3
San Jose ... $3.1 ... $3.0
Nashville ... $1.8 ... $1.7
Portland ... $2.4 ... $2.2
Denver ... $3.5 ... $3.2
Medium (33) ... ...
Honolulu ... $1.2 ... $1.1
Baton Rouge ... $0.9 ... $0.8
Bridgeport ... $1.4 ... $1.2
New Orleans ... $1.6 ... $1.6
Charleston ... $0.8 ... $0.7
* * *
Note that for the metro areas' congestion cost data, the metro areas are listed in order of their per-motorist congestion cost, which accounts for lower aggregated numbers in smaller metro areas, such as San Francisco and Baton Rouge.
Reforming Environmental Litigation, Continued
In my 2024 Reason Foundation policy paper, "Reforming Environmental Litigation," my research found that the kind of lengthy, time-consuming, and project-cost-increasing litigation was not a part of the original National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) but was invented by appeals courts and then became part of environmental regulation. My research found that this kind of after-the-environmental-review-studies litigation is unusual among peer countries in Europe and Australia/New Zealand.
The study also documented Stanford University research on the extent and outcome of such litigation. While litigation actually stopped relatively few infrastructure projects directly, it more often led to significantly increasing their cost, which led to some being terminated--not by the litigation but by the increased cost making the project no longer viable to construct. Finally, the study summarized an array of litigation reforms suggested by think tanks and academic researchers.
I'm pleased to see that interest in reforming such litigation is picking up support. Some of this is coming from supporters of green energy projects, such as wind, solar, and high-voltage transmission lines. But my assessment of potential political support suggested that the most likely path to success would be a bipartisan coalition of groups supporting both transportation and energy/environmental infrastructure.
That's an overly long introduction to a recent proposal from the Breakthrough Institute called "Reboot NEPA," written by Marc Levitt, Breakthrough's Director of Environmental Regulatory Reform.
Levitt begins by explaining what he means by a "reboot" of the NEPA legislation, signed by President Nixon 55 years ago. "Rebooting NEPA means returning the law to its originally intended purpose as a tool for environmentally informed infrastructure planning and for public engagement." NEPA's drafters "did not set out to create a litigation machine," he writes, and points to NEPA's intellectual architect, Lynton Caldwell, as emphasizing planning and public exposure as NEPA's core purpose.
Levitt goes on to explain that the Supreme Court's Seven County decision narrowed the scope of environmental reviews, and another decision eliminated the Council on Environmental Quality's authority to issue regulations. So it makes sense to figure out a rethinking of how environmental reviews should be carried out going forward, and fixing the litigation problem should be a major part of this reboot.
The paper then sets forth several specific reform proposals, as follows.
* Codify (early) meaningful public input to improve projects and mitigate impacts. Specifically, he proposes that agencies open a 60-day public comment period when they announce a planned environmental study.
* Limit project-stopping relief to cases of substantial undisclosed adverse environmental effects.
* Use AI and modern software to evaluate project eligibility for categorial exclusions, check completeness of applications, and integrate public comments into the environmental study.
* Mandate and fund an interagency NEPA platform and cross-agency data-sharing.
* Establish a centralized NEPA court or procedural review body.
* Codify Seven Counties limits on environmental review scope.
* Require agency follow-up on mitigation measures (because EPA has no such mechanism).
* Modernize EPA's Clean Air Act Section 309 review role.
* Eliminate ineffectual page and time limits.
Some of these go into details that I am not competent to assess. But the overall thrust of this approach strikes me as reasonable and realistic. It would preserve useful public input at the start of the review process, rather than attacking environmental reviews after they have been completed. And a designated review court or body could prevent venue-shopping by project opponents.
Those are my initial reactions, as an engineer/policy analyst with no legal training. I hope these proposals lead to significant discussion and generate needed NEPA reform by Congress.
Federal Regulators Clear Driverless Truck Barrier, For Now
By Marc Scribner
Fully automated semi-trucks without a driver onboard were put into commercial service for the first time earlier this year. Aurora Innovation began driverless operations on a route between Dallas and Houston, with plans to quickly expand in the Sun Belt and beyond. However, the company's expansion plans were threatened by an obscure federal regulation mandating the use of roadway warning devices. Aurora requested and then was denied a waiver from the rule, which spawned a legal challenge from the company. In a turn of events, regulators decided to grant Aurora its waiver last month, clearing the path for more driverless truck deployments. But this remedy is temporary and highlights the need for durable regulatory reform to support automated vehicle deployments.
The challenge begins with a decades-old federal regulation on safety procedures when commercial motor vehicles are stopped on or along roadways (49 C.F.R. Sec. 392.22). The rule requires that within 10 minutes of stopping, warning triangles or flares must be placed in three locations around the stopped vehicle to alert approaching motorists of the potential hazard. This is no easy undertaking when there is no driver in the truck cab to place these devices.
In Jan. 2023, Aurora and Waymo petitioned the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) for a waiver from the warning device rule. Granting a waiver is conditioned on a finding of safety equivalence, so the companies proposed adding light beacons that would be mounted on the outside of the truck cabs and presented research showing the warning beacons would be more effective at alerting drivers than conventional warning triangles or flares.
This did not prove persuasive with FMCSA, which in Dec. 2024 denied Aurora and Waymo's waiver request. The agency argued the evidence provided by the companies was insufficient to demonstrate safety equivalence. But just weeks later in Jan. 2025, FMCSA announced a study on warning devices, conceding that it had no empirical evidence to support the existing rule. So, companies seeking relief from the warning device requirement faced the impossible task of demonstrating safety equivalence to a nonexistent standard.
This regulatory catch-22 was not lost on Aurora, which quickly filed suit challenging the denial of its waiver. The good news is that FMCSA ultimately relented in Oct. 2025, granting Aurora its waiver. The terms and conditions of the waiver give Aurora a three-month reprieve from the warning device rule until Jan. 9, 2026. It also allows other motor carriers operating autonomous trucks to gain relief from the rule if those carriers first notify FMCSA and certify that they will comply with the terms of the waiver.
During that period, motor carriers operating under the waiver must inform the agency of any crashes involving trucks equipped with warning beacons within five days. Carriers must also file a performance report with FMCSA within 30 days of the end of the waiver's term (or within 30 days of prematurely ceasing operations under the waiver). If FMCSA is satisfied that the terms have been met after the three-month waiver period, it will reissue the waiver.
While FMCSA's about-face on the warning device rule is welcome, it is still a temporary solution. Given that it has already admitted that there is no safety evidence to support the underlying rule, the agency should move quickly to establish a permanent compliance pathway for driverless trucks. Reason Foundation has developed draft legislation that would order FMCSA to codify a permanent exemption for driverless trucks equipped with warning beacons.
But the legacy requirement on warning device placement is only one regulatory barrier facing autonomous trucks. Numerous other rules are written in a manner that presumes a human driver is seated in the cab operating the vehicle and should be updated. To that end, Rep. Vince Fong (R-CA) introduced the AMERICA DRIVES Act (H.R. 4661) in July.
In addition to ordering FMCSA to interpret warning beacons as compliant with the warning device rule, Rep. Fong's bill would order the agency to clarify human-centric requirements such as those that apply to hours of service, drug testing, and commercial driver's license do not apply to autonomous trucks. It also importantly forbids the secretary of transportation from promulgating any regulation in the future that would discriminate against or unduly burden motor carriers operating autonomous commercial motor vehicles relative to their conventional counterparts and thereby establishing a technology-neutral mandate.
Rep. Fong's AMERICA DRIVES Act has yet to be considered by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Including it in the forthcoming surface transportation reauthorization bill due next year would go a long way in modernizing outdated federal regulations for autonomous vehicles.
Transit Evolves from HRT to LRT to BRT
by Baruch Feigenbaum
When light rail (LRT) burst onto the transportation scene 45 years ago, it was envisioned as a way of bringing the benefits of heavy rail (HRT) at a much lower price. And that first light rail line in San Diego succeeded. However, as transit agencies soon found out, constructing light rail, was on average, about 75% of the costs of constructing heavy rail. And, in general, LRT was slower and could carry significantly fewer people. Over the last 10 years, a growing number of transit agencies began choosing bus rapid transit (BRT) instead. A recent Eno Transportation Weekly article detailed the strength of this trend.
How prolific is the change? Examining the number of projects receiving federal funding provides a clue. Several federal programs can fund LRT but the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program is the most extensive. In 2007, 28 projects were funded by the CIG program. Fifteen were light rail projects and only one was BRT. In 2017, when 31 projects were funded, 10 were light rail, six were BRT, and five were streetcar projects. In 2024, among the 50 projects seeking CIG funding, 30, or the majority, are BRT projects. It should be noted that in 2007 and 2017 Republicans controlled the White House. In the past, Democrats have been more likely to support rail projects than Republicans. The fact that the Biden administration was such a big supporter of bus rapid transit shows how times have changed.
Nationwide BRT ridership has also rebounded from COVID-19 more robustly than LRT ridership. According to the most recent numbers from 2023, BRT ridership is at 60 million, less than 5% from its 2015 high-water mark of 63 million. LRT's 300 million riders may sound more impressive, but its 2017 ridership peak was 500 million. Streetcar's ridership was almost 60 million in 2017 and is now below 40 million. More new BRT systems have been added than new rail systems in the last five years, but not in proportion to the ridership numbers.
What has led to the change in project selection? The biggest factor is cost. BRT is doing to LRT what LRT did to HRT. The difference is BRT is significantly less expensive than LRT. A BRT-heavy line with its exclusive guideway costs $103 million per mile in Canada, while the Maryland Purple Rail LRT, which shares part of its running way with automobiles, costs $562 million per mile. The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transportation Authority (MARTA) reduced its costs by more than 50% by swapping out an LRT line for a BRT line.
Another factor is the flexibility. All BRT systems have running ways that give buses priority, enhanced stations, larger vehicles, enhanced use of technology, including off-board fare collection, intelligent transportation systems such as transit signal priority, and more frequent service. Many also have level boarding platforms and electronic signage. However, there are three types of BRT service, heavy, lite, and freeway. BRT Heavy operates in a dedicated lane and is best for corridors with 20 or more buses per hour. Constructing a dedicated lane has costs, which transit agencies must fund. But if there is a sufficient number of buses, the cost is justified. BRT Lite operates in mixed traffic, which means automobile drivers pay the cost for the lane. One of the things that separates BRT Lite from regular bus service is the use of transit signal priority (TSP) and queue jumps. These technologies provide buses with an early green cycle or an extended green cycle and use of a lane (often a right-turn lane) at intersections to bypass traffic. BRT Freeway operates on limited-access highways. Some lines include stops in the median, making it quicker and easier for buses to pick up passengers than if they had to exit and reenter the highway.
Contrast this with LRT. Traditional LRT, which operates in a dedicated guideway (track and overhead wires), is more expensive than a lane of pavement. Streetcars, which operate in mixed traffic, are cheaper but slower, and they cannot change lanes. As a result, streetcars often get stuck behind slow-moving vehicles. The average Streetcar speed is 4-5 mph, about the same as a fast walk. BRT Lite averages 20 mph. LRT and BRT are both heavy, averaging about 25-30 mph, while BRT Freeway averages 55 mph.
Congress also played a role. In 2005's Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Congress added Small Starts to the Capital Improvement Grants, which encouraged transit agencies to pursue smaller, less-expensive projects. In 2015, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act eliminated the requirement that CIG-grant recipients provide frequent service on the weekends. Because project planning, environmental review, and construction in transportation projects often takes 5-10 years, legislation may not lead to policy changes for 10-20 years. Hence, the recent uptick in BRT activity.
However, some places are sticking with rail. Los Angeles Metro is adding nine miles and four stations to the A Line, part of an ambitious slate of 28 infrastructure projects the region is building for the 2028 Olympics. Kansas City is doubling the length of its streetcar system. Yet, most places have made the decision that the lower costs and flexibility of bus rapid transit make it a better choice than rail.
News Notes
Louisiana Governor Suspends P3 Bridge's Tolls
On Oct. 3, Gov. Jeff Landry and Louisiana DOTD ordered a stop to toll collection on the P3-developed Belle Chasse Bridge in Plaquemines Parish. The replacement bridge was developed under a long-term design-build-finance-operate-maintain P3 concession with a consortium led by Plenary. Toll revenue is the primary source of funds to pay the project's bondholders and (they hope) a return on the equity investors' capital. The cash toll is $2.26, and with a GeauxPass transponder it's only 25 cents. But late fees for toll payments have aroused residents to protest to public officials. DOTD has begun negotiations with Plenary over technical issues and what residents regard as overly aggressive collection efforts on overdue bills.
FDOT Announces Project to Add 17 Miles of Express Lanes to I-4
While the Orlando portion of I-4 has 20.8 miles of express toll lanes, which are relieving considerable congestion there, FDOT announced on Oct. 21 that it will now add 17 miles of ETLs to I-4 in Hillsborough County, in the Tampa region of the state. Most of the ETLs in Orlando are two lanes each way, but funding constraints have led to this initial project adding one lane each way for the 17 miles to be added in Hillsborough County. FDOT told Construction Dive that this project has been in FDOT plans for 15 years. This initial project can fit within I-4's existing right-of-way.
Missing Link on Capital Beltway Managed Lanes Postponed
The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, on Oct. 16, voted not to add the I-495 Southside Express Lanes project to the region's long-term strategic plan. The final vote on this decision will take place on Dec. 7 by the Metropolitan Council of Governments. The reason for holding off is that Maryland officials have not approved this express toll lane's terminating point to be across the Woodrow Wilson Bridge in Maryland. If the lanes stop short on the Virginia side of the bridge, they will accommodate far less traffic, and hence generate a lot less toll revenue, which reduces the ability to finance this missing link based on projected toll revenue, as all the rest of that network has been financed.
Toll Road to Orlando Sanford Airport Approved
The Central Florida Expressway Authority last month decided to proceed with a proposed project to add a $200 million, two-mile toll road between SR 417 and the Orlando Sanford Airport. The rationale for the project is to reduce congestion on East Lake Mary Blvd. by nearly 50%. The agency is also planning a $1.59 billion toll road designated as SR 534 to alleviate severe congestion on Narcoossee Road. Construction is planned to begin in 2027.
Waymo Reports Far Fewer Serious Accidents Than Other Vehicles
In September, autonomous vehicle developer Waymo released a report on the 45 most serious crashes in which its vehicles were involved in recent months. Its fleet of AVs has logged 96 million miles of travel as of June 2025. Waymo estimates that typical human drivers would have gotten into airbag-triggering crashes 159 times in that amount of travel. But the Waymo vehicles had only 34 airbag crashes--79% less. Similarly, for injury-causing crashes, Waymo data showed that its vehicles has such crashes 80% less often. More details are in a column by Kai Williams.
Potential North Carolina Toll Lanes on I-40 Near Asheville
The MPO of French Broad River, NC is considering a feasibility study of adding 16 miles of toll lanes on I-40 from Exit 44 to Exit 27. Interest in the concept has been sparked by the benefits of such lanes in Charlotte and Raleigh.
Pennsylvania DOT Reports Unsolicited P3 Proposals
On Oct. 1, PennDOT announced that it would welcome unsolicited proposals for P3 transportation projects, Infralogic reported. Proposals were due by Oct. 31, not enough time to prepare something large and costly, so the responses may focus more on services than on infrastructure. Proposals will be reviewed by the seven-member Public Private Transportation Partnership Board.
Louisiana DOTD Moving Forward on St. Bernard Corridor
According to an Oct. 1 news release, the Port of New Orleans and DOTD have signed an agreement to work together on planning the St. Bernard Transportation Corridor, a new roadway to connect the planned Louisiana International Terminal to the Interstate highway system. The corridor is intended for freight traffic, reducing the burden on local roads. It is also intended as a hurricane evacuation route for St. Bernard Parish and its surroundings. No cost estimates are available, but tolls have been mentioned in some discussions of the project.
Arkansas DOT Launches I-49 Extension Project
In September, ARDOT held a groundbreaking for a new bridge across the Arkansas River near Barling, AR. It is the first step in a project that will add 14 miles of four-laned I-49, at an estimated cost of $1.3 billion. The project will build I-49 between Barling and Alma. The long-term vision of Arkansas and several other states is an I-49 that extends from the Gulf Coast to the Canadian border, but many stretches remain unbuilt.
Alabama Approves Plan for $3.5 Billion Mobile River Bridge
The Alabama Toll Road, Bridge, and Tunnel Authority has approved a plan for this new toll-assisted bridge. Personal vehicle tolls will be capped at $2.50, but heavy trucks will pay $15-18. The existing causeway, two tunnels, and another small bridge will remain non-tolled. With the project no longer viable as a long-term P3, as originally planned, the bridge will be built by a design-build contractor, Kiewit. Moreover, the plan calls for removing the tolls once the bonds have been paid off--a very 20th-century model.
Pennsylvania Plans Statewide Truck Parking Expansion
On Oct. 6, PennDOT announced that it plans to add 1,200 truck parking spaces at 133 locations statewide by the end of 2026. PennDOT says the new facilities will be added near Interstate on-ramps, at weigh stations, and various other locations along highway rights of way. PennDOT Secretary Mike Carroll noted that he holds a commercial driver's license himself and fully appreciates the need for more truck parking along major highways.
Highway Trust Fund's Record Users-Pay Deficit
Jeff Davis reported in Eno Transportation Weekly that the federal Highway Trust Fund ran an all-time high deficit of $30.6 billion in FY 2025. That's an increase from the previous year's deficit of $26.7 billion. The user tax revenues increased by only $1.2 billion, but total highway and transit spending increased by $5.2 billion, "pushed upward by the massive funding increase provided by the IIJA infrastructure law," all of which is borrowed money.
Missouri DOT Under Way on Statewide I-70 Reconstruction and Widening
Because Missouri legislators have never approved tolling, rebuilding aged I-70 (one of the earliest-built Interstates) cannot use toll financing, as Indiana now plans to do. Instead, it is using $2.8 billion in state general funds in a decade-long effort to rebuild and widen (to three lanes each way) all 200 miles of I-70. More than a decade ago, Missouri was part of a four-state Corridors of the Future project whose consensus result was to rebuild the four-state corridor with heavy-duty truck toll lanes. The current project will spend $350 million to rebuild the portion between Blue Springs and Odessa. It is the third of eight such projects, all being paid for by general taxpayers rather than Interstate users.
Oklahoma Turnpike Widening
The state's busiest highway, the 31-mile John Kilpatrick Turnpike, will be widened to three lanes each way and will add interchanges. The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority will spend $375 million of its toll revenue for the project, the agency announced in early October.
New Zealand Considering P3 Toll Roads
Back in June, the New Zealand Transport Ministry hired Citi to examine the potential of P3 toll roads, as the ministry considers P3 concessions for several potential new toll roads. Infralogic (Sept. 23) reported that Australian toll road company Transurban has partnered with Canadian pension fund La Caisse and NZ pension fund New Zealand Super in anticipation of potential toll road P3 concessions. Transport Minister Chris Bishop told Infralogic that the agency wants to learn of potential interest in such concessions for any or all of the three proposed toll roads.
Czech Republic Plans Two New Highway P3 Projects
Two planned motorway projects are likely to be procured as long-term P3s, according to Infralogic (Sept. 24). One is the Prague to Voracice portion of the D3 motorway; the other is the Bzenec-Breclav section of the D55 motorway. The projects will be procured as 25-30-year design-build-finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM) concessions financed based on availability payments. Both are planned to be operational by 2033.
Italian Court Vetoes Sicily Bridge Project
Politico reported that Italy's Court of Auditors rejected the government's plan to build a Euros13.5 billion suspension bridge across the Strait of Messina between Italy and Sicily. The 3.7 km suspension bridge would be the world's longest, if built. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni deemed the ruling "an act of overreach."
Bridge Across Long Island Sound Proposed
Newsweek reported that a proposed 14-mile bridge between Long Island (NY) and southern Connecticut is currently being debated. Connecticut developer Steve Shapiro has revived an idea dating back to New York's powerful Robert Moses in the 1950s. The bridge cost has been estimated at $50 billion, but Shapiro estimates that the toll revenue (at $39 per crossing) would pay for the construction in 48 years.
Tunnel Boring Machine Completes Virginia Tunneling
ENR reported (Oct. 13) that the tunnel boring machine for the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel expansion project in Virginia has completed its second (final) bore for the $3.9 billion project. When completed, the project will accommodate two GP lanes and two express toll lanes in each direction.
MassDOT to Re-Procure Service Plaza P3 contract
Infralogic reported (Oct. 16) that Massachusetts DOT will carry out a new procurement competition for a company to operate and manage the 18 service plazas on the Massachusetts Turnpike. Negotiations with Applegreen, which won the initial selection, led the company to withdraw.
Quotable Quote
"We believe an important step . . . is to reboot NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act]. The regulation has mutated far beyond what its drafters intended, becoming a vehicle for costly and overwhelmingly ineffective litigation. Comprehensive reform would place clearer bounds on the original function of NEPA--informed planning and public engagement--preventing the administrative bloat that has characterized the law since its passage. Rebooting NEPA would prevent the administrative ping-ponging that has become standard over the last two decades, as Democrats and Republican administrations each weaponize the statute for their own aims. And it will avoid the unintended consequences of some well-meaning proposals, such as environmental review page limits that merely shuffle content to report appendices, or the neutering of a regulation under a Republican president that could easily be revived on Day One of a Democratic successor."
--Alex Trebath, Marc Levitt, and Elizabeth McCarthy, "Keeping the Window Open," The Ecomodernist, Oct. 27, 2025
* * *
Robert Poole is director of transportation policy and Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/transportation-news/express-toll-lanes-strong-performance/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Staircase Rule That's Limiting Housing Growth
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 7 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Nov. 6, 2025:* * *
The staircase rule that's limiting housing growth
Revisiting the two-stair requirement in building code could improve spatial efficiency and expand housing options.
By Christina Mojica, Land use and Housing Policy Analyst
Across the United States, policymakers are rethinking how zoning affects housing supply, and a growing number of states are enacting reforms to make it easier to build. Yet, one area of regulation remains largely untouched and rarely questioned in public debate: ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 7 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Nov. 6, 2025: * * * The staircase rule that's limiting housing growth Revisiting the two-stair requirement in building code could improve spatial efficiency and expand housing options. By Christina Mojica, Land use and Housing Policy Analyst Across the United States, policymakers are rethinking how zoning affects housing supply, and a growing number of states are enacting reforms to make it easier to build. Yet, one area of regulation remains largely untouched and rarely questioned in public debate:the building code. Because building codes are closely associated with safety, revisiting them often feels uncomfortable. Their purpose is to protect life and property, though many of their underlying provisions date back nearly a century. The modern International Building Code, which most states and cities rely on, was first published in 2000, yet its foundations rest on safety conventions developed in the 1930s. In a world where construction materials, engineering methods, and fire prevention systems have all transformed, it is worth asking whether rules written for another era still make sense today.
Among the most influential yet overlooked aspects of the building code are its egress, or exit, requirements. In most jurisdictions, apartment buildings above three stories must include two separate staircases to allow occupants to evacuate during a fire. This rule originated in the early 20th century, when fire spread rapidly through wood-frame structures and safety systems such as sprinklers and smoke containment did not yet exist. While the intent remains sound, ensuring safe escape during emergencies, the rule's rigidity now limits the kinds of multifamily housing that can be built, particularly smaller and mid-rise apartments that fall between single-family homes and high-rise towers.
Although it may appear that revisiting these safety standards means trading safety for cheaper or easier construction, that is not the case. Modern building practices have advanced far beyond what older codes account for, and most developers are constructing safer buildings than ever before. Nearly all new multifamily projects include sprinkler systems, smoke detectors, pressurized stairwells, and fire-resistant materials that significantly reduce the risk of smoke, which remains the greatest danger associated with stairwell safety during a fire. Compartmentalized floor plans and automatic suppression systems further limit exposure and contain flames within a single unit. Research consistently shows that the number of staircases in a building is far less predictive of safety outcomes than the presence of these systems, which are now standard features in contemporary construction. This means that older, still-in-force regulations requiring multiple stairwells are less effective and redundant in light of new practices. Such redundancy leads to higher costs and fewer dwelling units than could be accomplished with more up-to-date requirements.
Many developed nations reflect this same understanding in their building codes. Countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, and Australia permit single-stair residential buildings well above the U.S. height limit of three stories, with research finding no higher fire-related risk. Canada, for example, allows such buildings up to six stories, while France permits them up to 16 stories, yet both maintain lower residential fire fatality rates than the U.S. The United States records roughly 1.1 residential fire deaths per 100,000 people, compared with 0.5 in the United Kingdom and 0.4 in Canada, despite their more flexible egress standards. This disparity in fire-related deaths suggests that comprehensive fire-safety strategies such as sprinklers, pressurized stairwells, and smoke containment are the true determinants of safety outcomes, not the number of staircases a building contains.
Design, livability, and housing supply
Revisiting the two-stair requirement could also improve spatial efficiency and expand housing options. A second staircase consumes valuable interior space, often lengthening corridors and reducing the number of possible apartments per floor. Further, when this constraint is removed, developers can construct dual-aspect units (apartments with windows on two sides), enhancing natural light, airflow, and livability. In one modeled comparison, the single-stair design accommodated 10 apartments per floor compared with nine in the two-stair version and provided six wheelchair-accessible units instead of four. The freed space can be used in different ways, whether for additional units, larger floor plans, or improved features and amenities, depending on how developers choose to design the building. This design flexibility also allows for a greater range of apartment types, including family-oriented two-, three-, and four-bedroom units, within a compact footprint.
* * *
Figure 1. Comparison between traditional double-loaded corridor design (left) and smart stair configuration (center and right), which allows a range of one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom units. (Source: Colorado Governor's Office, 2024) (https://www.colorado.gov/governor/news/governor-polis-attend-denvers-first-ever-smart-stair-housing-competition-smart-stair)
* * *
Studies also indicate that single-stair mid-rise buildings with compact floor plates can reduce total construction costs by roughly 6% to 13% compared to similar dual-stair designs, further improving their financial viability.
From a policy standpoint, these design efficiencies can make development feasible on smaller or irregular infill lots, specifically the sites often left vacant in urban areas due to design restrictions. Grouping minimum lot size reform, density reform, and reforms allowing single-stair layouts could facilitate mid-rise "missing middle" housing--three- to six-story buildings that bridge the gap between single-family homes and large apartment complexes. Such buildings tend to integrate more harmoniously into existing neighborhoods while providing attainable homes near transit and employment centers.
Importantly, the discussion around affordability should recognize that cost savings derived from code flexibility can directly influence project feasibility. Reducing excessive internal space requirements does not compromise safety and allows resources to be reallocated toward quality finishes, energy efficiency, or additional units. Developers respond to both the profit motive and the cost structure imposed by regulation; adjusting those structures can stimulate new housing production at little to no cost to the taxpayer without direct subsidies.
Policy reform momentum and a balanced path forward
A growing number of jurisdictions are beginning to reexamine building codes through this lens. Seattle updated its building code in 2024 to allow single-stair buildings up to six stories when equipped with sprinklers, pressurized stairwells, and limited evacuation distances. Hawaii and Washington, D.C., are conducting similar studies, and New York City has initiated a review of its egress standards in light of advancements in suppression and smoke-control systems. These reforms reflect a shift toward performance-based regulation, where compliance is measured by safety outcomes rather than by prescriptive design rules.
Critically, reform efforts are proceeding with caution. Policymakers and fire-safety experts emphasize that single-stair layouts should remain limited to mid-rise buildings with comprehensive safety systems and robust construction materials. Evidence supports this threshold: both international practice and empirical testing indicate that buildings within this height range (three- to six-story buildings) can maintain safe egress conditions during fire events when modern systems are present.
Understanding that the greatest fire risks occur in older, noncompliant buildings reframes the debate. Encouraging new construction under contemporary codes not only adds housing but also improves safety overall by replacing aging, higher-risk structures. Updating the egress standard retires old, out-of-date rules that no longer enhance safety with proven modern safety engineering that also serves public needs for housing.
Building codes interact with zoning, permitting, and infrastructure requirements to shape the feasibility of new housing. When outdated internal standards persist, they inadvertently restrict production and inflate costs with no added benefit to anyone. Modernizing these codes allows cities to respond to both safety expectations and affordability challenges with equal rigor--an approach that's both smarter and safer. Ultimately, the single-stair discussion is part of a broader movement to align building regulations with current technology and housing demand. The data show that under modern safety systems, single-stair mid-rises achieve comparable safety performance to traditional two-stair buildings simply through codifying already-standard practices. Updating the code to reflect that reality would not only encourage innovation but also ensure that new homes are built to the highest contemporary standards of safety, design, and livability.
* * *
Christina Mojica is a land use and housing policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/the-staircase-rule-thats-limiting-housing-growth/
It's not who owns homes. It's how few we build.
ATLANTA, Georgia, Nov. 7 -- The Georgia Public Policy Foundation posted the following news release:* * *
It's not who owns homes. It's how few we build.
*
When my family moved to Georgia three years ago, we decided to rent first. We wanted time to get to know the area before making a long-term commitment. So we did what most people do: We narrowed down neighborhoods, browsed Zillow listings, toured a few homes, compared rents, weighed commute times and tried to find a place that fit our budget and our life.
What I didn't realize at the time was that the home we chose was owned by one of ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, Nov. 7 -- The Georgia Public Policy Foundation posted the following news release: * * * It's not who owns homes. It's how few we build. * When my family moved to Georgia three years ago, we decided to rent first. We wanted time to get to know the area before making a long-term commitment. So we did what most people do: We narrowed down neighborhoods, browsed Zillow listings, toured a few homes, compared rents, weighed commute times and tried to find a place that fit our budget and our life. What I didn't realize at the time was that the home we chose was owned by one ofthe biggest political bogeymen in Georgia's housing debate.
If you've followed the conversation even casually, you've heard the claim: Large institutional investors are "buying up" homes, driving prices sky-high and locking families out of the market. The villains in this narrative are faceless corporate landlordsWall Street firms snapping up starter homes and renting them back to the very people who might've bought them.
But like most stories that sound that simple, this one has more layers. And it's worth separating the easy headlines from what's actually happening on the ground.
A new report from the Georgia Public Policy Foundation takes a close look at institutional investors in metro Atlanta and finds that their role in rising housing costs is much smaller than headlines suggest. Yes, institutional ownership is concentrated here, but no, it isn't the main driver of high prices or low homeownership. Those problems have deeper roots in housing policy, lending rules and a chronic failure to build enough homes.
Institutional investors, defined variously as real-estate trusts, private-equity funds and other large firms, own a notable share of Atlanta's single-family rental market. By some counts, that share is 25-30% of rentals, though only a fraction of the total housing stock.
We found a key distinction often lost in the political rhetoric: Investors didn't create Georgia's affordability crisis. Rather, they entered markets already defined by rapid population growth and limited supply. Like water flowing into a low spot, capital goes where conditions make it most productive. When zoning rules, lot-size minimums and permitting delays restrict new construction, prices rise and investors naturally follow.
Despite thin evidence, lawmakers in both parties have raced to curb institutional ownership. But such efforts risk mistaking a symptom for the disease. Limiting investor activity might briefly ease competition for entry-level homes, yet it would also shrink rental supply. This hurts the very families shut out of homeownership. As the Foundation report notes, researchers increasingly find that large-scale landlords can expand housing options by converting unused or foreclosed properties into rentals, improving management quality and offering mobility to tenants who prefer to rent.
Georgia's housing shortage didn't start with institutional investors. It started with the Great Recession. After 2008, homebuilding collapsed and has never fully recovered. For decades, Georgia added roughly 2.5% to its housing stock each year. Since 2007, it hasn't topped 1.5%. Even modest growth in population has far outpaced new construction.
This "lost decade" coincided with the rise of large-scale investors, which made them an easy scapegoat. But if investor buying was truly "shutting homebuyers out," Georgia could have countered it by permitting even a few tenths of a percent more new homes each year. The real obstacle wasn't Wall Street capital but local land-use policy.
There's another overlooked barrier: post-crisis lending rules. The Dodd-Frank Act's "Qualified Mortgage" standards, designed to prevent risky lending, have effectively locked millions of responsible, mortgage-readyAmericans out of the mortgage market. Two decades ago, only one-quarter of home loans went to borrowers with "superprime" credit scores above 760. Today, that share is nearly 70%.
The result is predictable. Even families who could manage a mortgage but fall short of today's narrow credit standards can't qualify to buy, leaving them dependent on rentalsincluding those owned by institutional investors. In that sense, investor-owned homes have become a bridge for families boxed out by federal policy.
Metro Atlanta's demographics and regulatory environment magnify these trends. Population growth, economic opportunity and tight zoning have created affordability challenges and fertile ground for investors. In counties like Paulding and Henrywhere investor concentration is highestowner-occupancy is still rising, showing that homebuyers and renters coexist within a dynamic, if constrained, market.
Studies have suggested that institutional landlords can lower rents in aggregate by increasing professionally managed rental supply and attracting tenants from lower-income neighborhoods into higher-opportunity areas. These are not the outcomes of predation, but of scale and efficiency.
Georgia's housing crisis will not be solved by vilifying investors or imposing ownership caps. It will be solved by building more homes of every kind. That means tackling the real cost drivers: zoning restrictions, minimum lot sizes, construction delays and a mortgage system that rewards only the wealthiest buyers.
The Foundation's report offers a sobering reminder: Even in metro Atlanta, where investor activity is highest, institutional ownership explains only a sliver of what drives housing costs. Policymakers who focus on curbing investors risk missing the forest for the trees.
Housing affordability is ultimately a matter of supply and access, not ownership type. Georgia's challenge isn't that too many investors are buying homesit's that too few homes are being built, and too few families can qualify to buy them.
***
Original text here: https://www.georgiapolicy.org/news/its-not-who-owns-homes-its-how-few-we-build/
Foundation for Economic Education Launches Second Cycle of Enterprising Founder Award to Empower Education Entrepreneurs
WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 -- Nasiyah Isra-Ul, LiberatED Education Associate at the Foundation for Economic Education, announced the launch of the second cycle of the Enterprising Founder Award to celebrate and support education entrepreneurs driving change through free-market principles. Reflecting on the program's first year, Isra-Ul highlighted the success of awardees including Jessica Slayback and Victoria Forsman of REALM, Mercedes Grant of Path of Life Learning, and Coi Morefield of The Lab School of Memphis, whose initiatives grew with funding and recognition. She emphasized that the award's purpose ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 -- Nasiyah Isra-Ul, LiberatED Education Associate at the Foundation for Economic Education, announced the launch of the second cycle of the Enterprising Founder Award to celebrate and support education entrepreneurs driving change through free-market principles. Reflecting on the program's first year, Isra-Ul highlighted the success of awardees including Jessica Slayback and Victoria Forsman of REALM, Mercedes Grant of Path of Life Learning, and Coi Morefield of The Lab School of Memphis, whose initiatives grew with funding and recognition. She emphasized that the award's purposeextends beyond celebration, serving as vital capital and community support for founders seeking to reimagine learning outside traditional systems.
-- Shanskar Shaw
* * *
When the idea of a free-market founder award at the Lab was suggested, I was thrilled. This award is specifically designed to honor education entrepreneurs using the core principles of the free market to design, build, and grow their own learning spaces. Exciting and necessary! I know from firsthand experience as an education entrepreneur how important recognition, funding, and community are, especially when you're just starting out.
My excitement continued to grow as the applications started rolling inover 100 of them! After months of sharing the opportunity on social media, combing through applications, careful consideration, and lots of deliberation, we selected the first three awardees. It was powerful to read every application and see the impact that this award program had on so many, even for those who didn't win. Yet, I had no idea how much impact this award program would create in just its first year.
It's been a full year since those first awardees were honored publicly, and as we open up the new award cycle, I decided to check back in with our 2024 winners to see how being recognized as an Enterprising Founder has supported their endeavors.
Jessica and Victoria's Update
Jessica Slayback and Victoria Forsman are the co-founders of REALM, an innovative private learning program geared towards homeschooling families based in Santa Monica, California. "REALM was built entirely through entrepreneurial vision and market responsiveness. Every class, program, and initiative has been shaped by the choices of our families and teachers," Jessica says.
Jessica and Victoria were the first-place winners of last year's Enterprising Founder Award, receiving a $5,000 grant and tons of digital publicity. When they first heard about the award, it was the mission behind it that drew them to apply. "We saw the award as an opportunity to connect with like-minded innovators who believe that education thrives when it's driven by creativity, autonomy, and community rather than bureaucracy."
Jessica added, "Winning the FEE Enterprising Founder Award was both a celebration and a turning point. It reaffirmed that the work we've poured into REALM for over a decade is part of a broader movement reshaping education." And, a year after winning, that vision has only grown! The grant allowed them to expand their technological infrastructure and prepare their programs for expansion, while also piloting a program that will teach educators how to use REALM's pedagogical methods in their own classrooms. They hope eventually to create a certification program for founders. "Most importantly, the funding amplified our confidence and visibility and served as both seed capital and validation to attract additional support from our growing network of families, educators, and partners."
Mercedes's Update
Mercedes Grant is the founder of Path of Life Learning, a microschool in Yorktown, Virginia. She started her microschool so that she "could offer children a joyful place to learn." Mercedes says that while Path of Life Learning values high-quality academic experiences, "we also recognize that children need to be equally exposed to a variety of non-academic learning experiences." This is something that the traditional school system did not encourage, Mercedes says, "especially among students with exceptionalities."
Mercedes was a runner-up last year, receiving an Enterprising Founder title and a $2,500 grant. When asked how winning the award last year has changed things for her, Mercedes says that she has nearly doubled enrollment, added new staff members, and even expanded the enrichment program to offer more than a dozen different course options per quarter. Most excitingly, Mercedes shared with me that she is now also a contender for one of the nation's most prestigious school choice awards, the $1 million Yass Prize !
"The future of education is changing at a rapid pace," Mercedes says. "[] recognizes people that not only encourage but act courageously to maintain this momentum toward education freedom in a free market."
Coi's Update
Coi Morefield is the founder of The Lab School of Memphis. "I started The Lab School of Memphis because I was a parent searching for something that didn't exist. I have twice-exceptional twins, and I was looking for an environment that would truly see them. Not just their gifts in isolation, but the whole, complex, brilliant kids they are."
When Coi first learned about the Enterprising Founder Award, she says, "I felt this surge of hope. I saw it as an opportunity to bring more attention to innovative models like ours. Not just for recognition's sake, but because visibility matters." Coi was selected as another runner-up for the award, also receiving a $2,500 grant. She felt extremely honored to receive the recognition the award provided, and the funding allowed her to continue growing her brand.
The funding allowed Coi to invest in the infrastructure, systems, and resources needed to streamline operations and invest in families. "When we support communities to design education that reflects their values and needs, we're not just changing schools; we're changing trajectories, legacies." Moreover, the award propelled her vision forward, and since then, she has been partnering with public charter schools and other private schools to share learning tools and pedagogy. "We're having these incredible conversations about what learner-centered education can look like at scale, and how we can support all learners within different educational structures. That ripple effect is exactly what I hoped for."
How the Enterprising Founder Award Is Setting a Trend
"The biggest challenge is that traditional funding models don't always align with what we need most," Coi says. "Edupreneurs need resources to build systems that streamline operations, save time, and improve the customer experience, but those things require upfront investment before you see the return. It's hard to get capital for infrastructure when funders want to see immediate programmatic impact." Awards like the Enterprising Founder Award, Coi says, give education entrepreneurs "the runway to build something that lasts..."
Each awardee shared how this recognition has inspired them to keep doing the amazing work they do best, empowering them to dream big and providing a small boost to help them expand. "For us personally, it was an acknowledgment of the courage it takes to stand outside traditional systems and trust that passion, creativity, and community can drive real change," Jessica says. "[The award] also connected us to an inspiring network of innovators and strengthened our belief that education entrepreneurship is the future, a path where freedom, innovation, and heart come together to help children truly flourish."
But the award is doing more than just honoring founders leveraging the free market. is setting a trend in the policy world to help us think differently about sustainable ways to honor, empower, and propel education entrepreneurs like the ones in this article.
For all of these founders, this award is more than recognition; it's providing meaningful capital to help founders prioritize growth. Moreover, it's starting conversations and amplifying the work already being done to change education for the better. As Coi added so beautifully, "If we want learner-centered models to become mainstream rather than niche, people need to know they exist and that they work." That's exactly what this award and our awardees are doing!
I am so excited that this program is being renewed for a second year with even bigger things in store. Right now, applications are open again, and it could be your chance to be honored as an Enterprising Founder. Nominate someone you know by visiting our Instagram page @_edentrepreneur and submit your application today by visiting edentrepreneur.org !
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/the-enterprising-founder-award/
Taking Care of the Future Since 1925
DENVER, Colorado, Nov. 6 -- The Denver Foundation issued the following news:* * *
Taking Care of the Future Since 1925
In 1925, a group of like-minded Denverites--who went unnamed in the original charter-- created The Denver Foundation. They were inspired by Cleveland's example but also by the legacy of giving within Denver's own communities, especially the gifts of talent and time that were offered up so freely and so often among neighbors. Seeing that financial gifts to traditional charity funds often stagnated, they founded this new "community chest" to support the greater good by combining ... Show Full Article DENVER, Colorado, Nov. 6 -- The Denver Foundation issued the following news: * * * Taking Care of the Future Since 1925 In 1925, a group of like-minded Denverites--who went unnamed in the original charter-- created The Denver Foundation. They were inspired by Cleveland's example but also by the legacy of giving within Denver's own communities, especially the gifts of talent and time that were offered up so freely and so often among neighbors. Seeing that financial gifts to traditional charity funds often stagnated, they founded this new "community chest" to support the greater good by combiningprivate, public, and corporate funds that were donated and grew over time in ways traditional charity funds could not. Melding permanence and growth with flexibility and ingenuity, the foundation thrived and evolved in its first century.
A Forward-Thinking Mindset
We can't predict the future, but we can plan for it. When collaborating with current and future donors, The Denver Foundation takes this truth to heart. Donors who plan to give assets to a philanthropic cause during their lifetime or as part of their estate planning do so with thoughtful intention. Community foundations seek to safeguard those intentions and ensure that the funds remain in play for the causes dear to each donor's heart.
The Denver Foundation had a forward-thinking mindset from the start. As one of the first 25 community foundations in the U.S., the foundation purposefully sought to help donors prudently plan for their city's future through endowments, donor-advised funds, and, eventually, other types of charitable funds. The 1926 charter begins by laying out goals for the foundation's work, emphasizing a desire "to substitute contemporary wisdom for forethought in charities." The focus was planning for the future by equipping donors with the opportunities and tools they needed and an endowment or fund that promised to grow, sustain itself, and remain beneficial for years, decades, even centuries to come.
As the original charter states, the foundation's original primary purpose was to support Denver communities through aid in the social services, education, and health categories while avoiding charitable funds becoming obsolete due to changes in circumstances. In the vernacular of its era, the charter warns of "dead hands": philanthropic funds dedicated with the best of intentions but whose causes no longer exist. The charter even gave an example: charitable gifts in the 1800s that were earmarked to support the care and housing of those with leprosy. By 1925, as leprosy treatments emerged, those funds could offer far more limited benefits. With this as just one example among many, The Denver Foundation offered donors the solution of giving to a community foundation that could adapt so that their funds could remain impactful well into the future.
The Founders
In 1925, some "public-minded men" and representatives of seven local banks modeled The Denver Foundation after the Cleveland Foundation because, as they noted in their charter, within five years of its launch, the Cleveland Foundation "had been assured of bequests to a total of more than $100,000.00, which gave ample proof of the usefulness of the plan." In like manner, The Denver Foundation sought to encourage the growth and meaningful use of charitable funds in its own city.
Today, dozens of committees made up of volunteer community members review and select grantees. However, the original charter had a unique process for choosing the members of its lone "Distribution Committee," charged with reviewing grant applications and awarding funds. Per the charter, the foundation's administrative functions and grant awards were judiciously overseen by local authority figures who appointed the seven members of the committee. Two of those members were to be chosen by the trustee banks that managed the funds. The other five were selected by the mayor of Denver, the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court, the chief judge of the Denver District Court, and the judge of the Probate Court, respectively.
The original Distribution Committee included some well-known names: entrepreneur John Kernan "J.K." Mullen, industrialist J.F. Welborn, insurance executive F.W. Standart, educator Emily Griffith, plumbing supplier Martin O'Fallon, and Judge Ira C. Rothgerber Sr. The professional experience of these first committee members helped The Denver Foundation get off the ground.
The First Gift of Many
After two years of thoughtfully overseeing the administrative and legal setup of the organization, The Denver Foundation received its first gift in 1927 from Distribution Committee member J.K. Mullen.
The Irish-born Mullen, founder of the Colorado Mining and Elevator Company, was also known for his success in the flour mill industry with J.K. Mullen and Company. His $1,000 donation paved the way for the foundation's first recorded grant to support the Community Chest of Denver--today's Mile High United Way. Mullen's gift was split into two grants, half supporting the Community Chest and the other $500 covering administrative costs for The Denver Foundation as it established itself. With that first gift, the foundation launched its legacy of recognizing and addressing needs within the Denver community.
The foundation has grown alongside the city of Denver, evolving to keep pace with its ever-changing city while staying true to its original vision.
The First Permanent Endowment
In the nature of a true community foundation, more donations quickly followed philanthropist Mullen's inaugural gift. The Denver Foundation received its first permanent endowment in November 1929 from Alice Coleman. The Alice Sherwin Coleman Fund--at the time known as a "restricted fund"--benefited three agencies for the care of older adults. Though two of those agencies no longer serve Metro Denver, the foundation has since applied the funds to organizations with similar purposes, such as the Anchor Center for Blind Children and the National Sports Center for the Disabled.
* * *
One of the first 25 community foundations in the United States, The Denver Foundation purposefully helps donors prudently plan for the future.
* * *
This gift lives on today in the foundation's Care Fund, a combined fund that supports the well-being of people with low incomes who also live with developmental, intellectual, or physical disabilities, and people who are visually impaired or blind. Coleman's gift was just the first of many such endowments that have adapted to continue to support the community and sustain The Denver Foundation's work.
* * *
Original text here: https://denverfoundation.org/2025/11/taking-care-of-the-future-since-1925/
SLF to Sec. Sean Duffy: DOT Right to Remove Race & DEI From 'Socially Disadvantaged' Programs
ROSWELL, Georgia, Nov. 6 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation issued the following news release on Nov. 5, 2025:* * *
SLF to Sec. Sean Duffy: DOT right to remove race & DEI from "Socially Disadvantaged" Programs
Today, Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) issued a public comment in support of the Department of Transportation (DOT) considering a new rule which revises the discriminatory policies that plagued its programs.
SLF President Kim Hermann said, "It is unconstitutional to favor anyone based on their race or sex and all policies that do just that must be stamped out at all costs. We are ... Show Full Article ROSWELL, Georgia, Nov. 6 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation issued the following news release on Nov. 5, 2025: * * * SLF to Sec. Sean Duffy: DOT right to remove race & DEI from "Socially Disadvantaged" Programs Today, Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) issued a public comment in support of the Department of Transportation (DOT) considering a new rule which revises the discriminatory policies that plagued its programs. SLF President Kim Hermann said, "It is unconstitutional to favor anyone based on their race or sex and all policies that do just that must be stamped out at all costs. We arethrilled to see that DOT is looking to revise these discriminatory policies that were clearly looking to divide workers of different races all in the name of DEI. All forms of DEI must be promptly removed from government organizations and programs. We hope all government agencies and programs will follow Sec. Duffy's lead here."
SLF issued a public comment earlier this year to Secretary of DOT Sean Duffy, advising that the agency remove its "Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Airport Concessions" (ACDBE) and "Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Finance Assistance Program" (DBE) which both encouraged discriminatory favoring of "socially disadvantaged" individuals.
As SLF has shown via federal lawsuits, "socially disadvantaged" is just another way to exclude white men from government programs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has dozens of discriminatory programs impacting farmers, which SLF has chipped away at through lawsuits and public comment.
SLF said in the comment, "DOT is wise to redefine the term "socially disadvantaged" by removing the presumption for certain races and women. In its place, DOT proposes to require that businesses make an individualized showing before DOT will consider them to be "socially and economically disadvantaged." Until DOT adopts this neutral definition, the two programs will, by design, engage in the 'sordid business [of] divvying us up by race.'"
* * *
Original text here: https://slfliberty.org/slf-to-sec-sean-duffy-dot-right-to-remove-race-dei-from-socially-disadvantaged-programs/
New York's New Leadership Offers Champagne Socialism
DETROIT, Michigan, Nov. 6 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following news:* * *
New York's New Leadership Offers Champagne Socialism
*
The proposed policies will hurt middle-class taxpayers.
Zohran Mamdani is now New York City's first Democratic Socialist Mayor-elect, and with him comes a slew of initiatives marketed as making the Big Apple more affordable, safer, and more equitable. While this sounds good in theory (as political promises often do), Mamdani's champagne socialism will only push rich New Yorkers away from the city, and leave the middle and working classes ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Nov. 6 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following news: * * * New York's New Leadership Offers Champagne Socialism * The proposed policies will hurt middle-class taxpayers. Zohran Mamdani is now New York City's first Democratic Socialist Mayor-elect, and with him comes a slew of initiatives marketed as making the Big Apple more affordable, safer, and more equitable. While this sounds good in theory (as political promises often do), Mamdani's champagne socialism will only push rich New Yorkers away from the city, and leave the middle and working classesto foot the bill. Even if NY Governor Kathy Hochul weren't already opposed to Mamdani's " Tax-the-Rich " plans, and Mamdani somehow received the support of the more traditionally Democrat-run state legislature and various administrative agencies, his policies are not realistically sustainable for an almost-9-million-strong city, and will only leave New Yorkers in a worse place than where they were at before the barrage of TikTok edits and snappy Instagram ads of a socialist utopia.
Rent Freezes and Affordable Housing Will Force People Out of Their Homes
The Mayor-elect's campaign promised 200,000 new affordable housing units over the next ten years. Mamdani's solution is to establish community land trusts to buy up housing on the private markets and to convert them into "beautiful, high-quality social housing projects that offer good homes and strong communities to everyone."
How can NYC create more "affordable housing" in an already crowded city landscape? We don't need to guess. We only need to look at Europe, where in Berlin and Stockholm, rent controls led to housing availability quickly drying upleaving people with no means to rent at all. Grey markets soon emerged where landlords started charging tenants for furniture or kitchen equipment as a condition of their leases. In Stockholm particularly, heavy rent regulation also created a black market for unregulated rental agreements, where one in five young tenants have admitted to paying for illegal rental contracts, just for a chance to live in the capital.
But certainly Mamdani's affordable housing construction plans will fare better in NYC? The Big Apple is already one of the most regulated real estate markets in the world, with New York's public housing program in charge of providing shelter to almost 530,000 residents across 335 sites. Meanwhile, these "affordable" housing units are falling apart. Currently, there is an approximate $78 billion backlog in city repairs to apartments suffering from "non-functioning smoke detectors, antiquated electrical components, damaged interiors, missing child guards, missing AC brackets, deteriorated windows, deteriorated roofs, deteriorated pumps, and leaking pipes." To make matters worse, the average New York "affordable housing" building is roughly 60 years old, while 70% of the portfolio was built prior to 1970.
Considering the widespread corruption within NYC's already bloated housing bureaucracy, how realistically can Mamdani provide ample and safe affordable housing to New York's needy, without running up astronomical costs?
You know who won't be too concerned about unrealistic expectations surrounding affordable housing? The approximate 765,000 people (that's 9% of NYC's population) packing their bags and moving out of New York for greener pastures. Meanwhile, less fortunate residents will have to stay put, and bear the brunt of Mamdani's half-baked policy positions.
Mamdani's Social Worker Scheme Leaves New Yorkers Less Safe
In addition to his housing goals and government supermarket plans, Mamdani has ideas about the criminal justice system. He wants to defund the police ; close Rikers Island prison and release 8,000 inmates into the general populace; and end misdemeanor arrests while deprioritizing "unserious" crimes like forcible touching, third-degree assault, and sexual misconduct. Likewise, Mamdani's proposed " Office of Community Safety " would replace NYPD officers with unarmed social workers when addressing "mental health" episodes, regardless of the level of danger or violence posed to innocent New Yorkers.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has led a progressive crusade to liberalize law and order since he was first elected in 2022. Despite being the city's top prosecutor, Bragg's soft-on-crime policies have seen a 52% reduction of all felony charges to mere misdemeanorsincluding violent assaults. This has led to a reported 13.2% increase in felony assaults, a 10.10% increase in rapes, and a 30% increase in robberies, all in the same year.
Despite claiming to want to reduce violent crime, Bragg has instead let violent repeat offenders free, and has actively ignored cases of clear violent assault, including the battery of a pro-life activist during a street interview back in April. The message is clear : the DA's office is no longer interested in prosecuting misdemeanors, and will do whatever it can to downgrade violent assaults and other crimes, wherever it can.
Meanwhile, Mamdani himself has enjoyed the protection of private security while he campaigned this summer and fall, paying $8,000 in June alone to a private security firm. While politicians are afforded the luxury of 24/7 private security protection, average New Yorkers will be left exposed to double-digit increases in felony assaults on their subway commute to work. Where's the equity in that?
Mamdani's plans promise "fairness" but will make life harder for everyday residents of the city.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/new-yorks-new-leadership-offers-champagne-socialism/