Furchtgott-Roth begins the section by recommending that we move all Federal transportation funding and leave transportation projects up to the private sector, or, barring that, we split all of the funding between the states and let them figure out how they want to spend it. She suggests zero oversight for this. Will the Department of Transportation be ensuring that states spend their funding wisely, and on transportation-related projects? Or do they care? One wonders what she believes that Department of Transportation is FOR. 

Furthermore, what impetus would the private sector have to take on any of these projects? They’re not profitable unless you’re charging a premium for these services. I can see now all roads becoming toll roads, and rural or low-traffic areas will be left to crumble – it simply won’t be profitable for anyone to maintain their roads, bridges, or infrastructure, nor to create any kind of public transportation options. If private companies take on bus travel and other public transportation, fares will rise.

It’s possible to take on some projects via public-private partnerships, where private companies work with state or local governments, but this could strain the financies of municipalities. Social concerns like accessibility for disabled people or equitable access to transportation may also take a back seat if they don’t align with profit motives.

The DOT is responsible for thousands of jobs, many of which could be lost if federal funding is eliminated. Private companies may not hire as many workers, especially for less profitable or smaller-scale projects, leading to job losses.

Transportation infrastructure is also considered a key factor in economic development, as it enables people to travel to jobs, markets, and services. A reduction in public investment could slow economic growth and limit mobility for certain groups, especially in areas where the private sector may not invest.

For certain concerns, you cannot leave it up to the private sector to take care of them, for SO many reasons. Infratructure and transportation is one of the things that the government needs to maintain for safety and accessibility reasons, and more.

“The department should ensure a tech-neutral approach to addressing any emerging transportation technology while keeping safety as the number one priority. As part of this, it should work to facilitate the safe and full integration of automated vehicles into the national transportation system.” (Project 2025, Section 3.10: Department of Transportation, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, page 657, paragraph 2.)

I didn’t have “supports self-driving cars” on my Project 2025 bingo card, but here we are. By default, that’s support for electric vehicles – 58% of self-driving cars are electric, and an additional 21% are hybrids¹. This doesn’t fit with the rest of the Project’s vehement pro-fossil fuel / anti-environment stance.

“The Clean Air Act gives EPA general authority to establish emissions limits for new motor vehicles for air pollutants that are found to pose a danger to humans. However, there is no reason to believe Congress ever contemplated that EPA’s authority to address automotive air pollution might be used to displace or supersede NHTSA’s fuel economy mandate under EPCA.” (Project 2025, Section 3.10: Department of Transportation, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, pages 658 and 659.)

And just like that, we’re back. This is an argument that fuel efficiency should trump emissions standards – in other words, if controlling emissions interferes with fuel economy, it should be ignored. You can have both, by the way.

“Since model year 2004, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have decreased by 24 percent as fuel economy has increased by 32 percent.” [Source]²

“In pursuit of an anti–fossil fuel climate agenda never approved by Congress, the Biden Administration has raised fuel economy requirements to levels that cannot realistically be met by most categories of ICE vehicles. The purpose is to force the auto industry to transition away from traditional technologies to the production of electric vehicles (EVs) and compel Americans to accept costly EVs despite a clear and persistent consumer preference for ICE-powered vehicles. In further support of this agenda, federal regulators administer a scheme of generous fuel economy credits that subsidize EV producers such as Tesla at the expense of legacy automakers.” (Project 2025, Section 3.10: Department of Transportation, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, page 659, paragraph 3.)

Does Furchtgott-Roth not know that most self-driving vehicles are EVs? It feels like she doesn’t know that. ICE is an acronym for “internal combustion engine”, meaning gas-powered vehicles.

Here’s what’s true and what’s misleading here. True: The Biden Administration has raised fuel economy standards as part of its broader climate policy. In 2022, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) introduced new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which are intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles. These standards are stricter than those in place under the Trump Administration.

Misleading: The statement suggests that these standards are “unrealistic” for internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. While the new standards are indeed more stringent, automakers are generally able to meet them by using a mix of more efficient ICE vehicles, hybrid technologies, and electric vehicles (EVs). It is not impossible for automakers to comply, although it may require significant changes in vehicle design and production.

True: The Biden Administration’s policies do aim to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles (EVs) as part of broader climate goals. This includes not only raising fuel economy standards but also investing in EV infrastructure, providing tax credits for EV purchases, and promoting stricter emissions regulations.

Misleading: The administration is not outright “forcing” the industry to abandon ICE vehicles, but it is creating incentives and regulations that make EVs more attractive and ICE vehicles less viable in the long term. The auto industry itself has been increasingly moving toward EVs, with many legacy automakers, like GM and Ford, announcing major investments in EV technology, partially in response to market and regulatory trends.

True: Many consumers do still prefer ICE vehicles, primarily due to lower upfront costs, concerns about charging infrastructure, and range limitations of EVs. EVs are generally more expensive, although they often have lower lifetime costs due to cheaper fueling (electricity vs. gasoline) and maintenance.

Misleading: The claim oversimplifies consumer preferences. While ICE vehicles remain popular, there has been a significant increase in demand for EVs, driven by environmental concerns, lower operating costs, and improvements in technology. The EV market is growing rapidly, especially in certain segments like luxury and urban markets. In fact, in 2023, the share of electric cars in total sales was 18%, up from 4% just three short years earlier in 2020. [Source]³

True: Federal regulators do administer a system of fuel economy credits, which allows automakers that exceed fuel efficiency standards (often through the production of EVs or hybrids) to sell credits to companies that are struggling to meet the standards. Tesla, as a major producer of EVs, has benefited from this system by selling excess credits to legacy automakers.

Misleading: While it’s true that Tesla and other EV producers benefit from these credits, it’s not accurate to frame this as a direct subsidy at the expense of legacy automakers. The credit system is a market mechanism that allows automakers flexibility in meeting fuel economy standards. Legacy automakers can either invest in improving fuel efficiency or purchase credits to comply. Moreover, many legacy automakers are now producing their own EVs and hybrids, allowing them to earn credits themselves.

“The Clean Air Act allows other states to follow California’s requirements; thus, CARB is effectively determining fuel economy policies for the entire nation.” (Project 2025, Section 3.10: Department of Transportation, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, page 659, paragraph 5.)

Nope. “Allowing” does not equal “forcing.” CARB is the California Air Resources Board, which issues its own fuel economy directives for California.

“NHTSA itself has acknowledged that the Biden Administration’s fuel economy standards will generate hundreds of additional fatalities and thousands of additional injuries on U.S. highways. Because older cars also produce more harmful air pollution, the aging of America’s fleet will also have negative consequences for air quality.” (Project 2025, Section 3.10: Department of Transportation, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, page 660, paragraph 1.)

This might be a contender for the most confused a human being has ever been and still sounded confident. This is olympic-level nonsense. I don’t agree with emissions standards, because it interferes with fuel efficiency, but because I’m attempting to make a point about how Americans will be stuck driving older cars because they can’t afford new ones – which I admit are safer – I’m suddenly pretending to care about the air pollution produced by these older cars, even though, generally speaking, I don’t care about air pollution caused by cars.

The idea that fuel efficiency standards will be to blame for “hundreds of fatalities” because people will be holding onto their older cars, because efficient cars are more expensive up front, and older cars become less safe over time, is convoluted insanity. If you have to twist yourself up into these kinds of knots to make your point, perhaps your point is not as good as you think it is.

“In exchange for all of these harmful effects—on traffic safety, consumer choice, American jobs, the nation’s air quality, and U.S. national security—the Biden fuel economy regulations are predicted to have no meaningful effect on global temperature trends over the long term.” (Project 2025, Section 3.10: Department of Transportation, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, page 660, paragraph 3.)

False.

“The EPA says the new rules will avert 7 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions and provide close to $100 billion in savings per year across the country in the form of fuel costs, lower maintenance needs, and health benefits.” [Source]⁴

“The Administration should consider returning to the minimum average fuel economy levels specified by Congress for model year 2020 vehicles: levels aimed at achieving a fleet-wide average of 35 miles per gallon.” (Project 2025, Section 3.10: Department of Transportation, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, page 660, paragraph 5.)

The average fuel economy in 2020 was 25.4 miles per gallon, not 35. [Source]² So, we didn’t quite meet the standard of 35 that was set forth. I couldn’t find specifications set forth by Congress for any years beyond 2020, and Furchtgott-Roth doesn’t specify, either.

“Revoke the special waiver granted to California by the Biden Administration. California has no valid basis under the Clean Air Act to claim an extraordinary or unique air quality impact from carbon dioxide emissions, and EPCA is clear that under no circumstances may a state agency regulate fuel economy in place of DOT. The federal government should therefore exercise its preemptive authority over CARB and take all steps necessary to invalidate any inconsistent fuel economy requirements imposed by CARB, including its ban on sales of internal combustion engines.” (Project 2025, Section 3.10: Department of Transportation, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, page 661, paragraph 1.)

California has historically received special waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act, allowing the state to set its own, more stringent vehicle emissions standards. This was due to California’s unique air pollution challenges, particularly in cities like Los Angeles. The waiver system enables California to set stricter limits on greenhouse gas emissions and regulate sales of certain types of vehicles, such as internal combustion engine (ICE) cars.

Why on earth would you care if a state is actually doing BETTER than government standards? And what would stop California from continuing “unofficially” with their own standards? This is performative nonsense.

Did California ban sales of cars with internal combustion engines? No, Furchtgott-Roth is being deliberately misleading about that with her having implied that it’s a current thing that’s in place right now. CARB did mandate that all new cars sold in CA should have zero tailpipe emissions by 2035, which will be an effective ban on fully gas-powered vehicles for new car sales in the state at that time. The policy won’t take existing cars off the road. 11 other states have announced plans to follow suit. [Source]⁵

“Today, facing a pilot shortage, larger and safer twin-engine planes with two pilots are being phased out of service at smaller airports and replaced by single-engine planes that have only one pilot. This trend could be reversed if copilots were required to have fewer flight hours or could count certified simulator training.” (Project 2025, Section 3.10: Department of Transportation, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, page 663, paragraph 5.)

I don’t like the idea of reducing training requirements for pilots, just to have more of them.

“Federal subsidies are also distorting the commercial market. The Essential Air Service (EAS) program subsidizes flights to 200 small airports that are not otherwise commercially viable. The program was established in the 1970s as a temporary measure to cushion deregulation. It has since been made permanent. Finally ending the program would free hundreds of pilots to serve larger markets with more passengers.” (Project 2025, Section 3.10: Department of Transportation, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, page 663, paragraph 6.)

Now she’s outright arguing for an example of what I was talking about at the beginning of this section. They do not care about rural or traditionally underserved areas. Ending the EAS program would likely result in many of these smaller airports losing commercial air service altogether. Here’s that list of communities that will be affected.⁶