The Trump administration's DOT Director Sean Duffy recently stripped some 1.78 billion dollars away from what he calls "DEI Bike Lanes". This was covered by Diane Jenks in The Outspoken Cyclist in a recent blog post.
In a grimly humorous but on point reply to the question "what is a DEI bike lane", Facebook commenter Doug Davis posted a long discussion on Facebook explaining it. I'm linking it here and reposting it, assuming Facebook is not copyright protected. If it is, I'll delete the text and tell you to just go to the original, here:
https://www.facebook.com/doug.davis.338739/posts/pfbid0KMQb6MqAUBagJCTCQCzmkKgLRy57EnqrTv2jqKBnmtsrHxqYHrd5fb29UqzsdjqLl?rdid=GvZIfcBiaf18K4gh
Doug Davis
AI content · 9h
๐๐๐ข๐ญ. ๐๐ข๐ค๐ ๐๐๐ง๐๐ฌ ๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ฐ?
๐โ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ก โ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ค ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐ก๐๐๐ . ๐ถ๐ฆ๐๐๐๐ ๐ก๐ โ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ ๐๐ฃ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐๐๐๐๐ก๐๐ฃ๐๐ ..
On July 7, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced $1.73 billion in BUILD grants for roads, bridges, ports, transit, rail, and other transportation projects. On X, he described the previous administration’s priorities somewhat less delicately, saying it had spent taxpayer money on “DEI bike lanes and climate change” and declaring, “THAT’S OVER.”
This came as a surprise to many cyclists, who had assumed a bike lane was a narrow strip of pavement rather than a graduate seminar.
Apparently we were wrong.
Soon afterward, references to bicycle lanes and several speed-management measures began disappearing from Federal Highway Administration webpages. NPR reported that five items were removed from the agency’s Proven Safety Countermeasures list, including bicycle lanes, road diets, speed-safety cameras, variable speed limits, and speed limits intended to protect vulnerable road users. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool also became unavailable through its former federal webpage. Internal emails obtained by NPR reportedly directed staff to remove or revise references to bicycles, bike lanes, and certain speed measures.
The underlying laws of physics were not consulted.
Neither, as far as anyone knows, was the pavement.
The federal government is free to reconsider its grant priorities. Elections have consequences, and one of those consequences is apparently that the word bicycle may now require review by several attorneys and a person carrying a red pen.
But removing information from a government website does not make the research beneath it disappear. It merely makes the research harder to find, which is an unusual approach for an agency whose name contains both Federal and Administration.
It also raises an important question.
What exactly does DEI mean after examining this question I came to the following conclusions
๐๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ง๐๐ข๐๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐: bureaucratic neglect with blood on its hands.
๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐ ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐ ๐จ๐ป๐ฎ๐บ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฑ
The administration’s decision does not mean every bicycle project rejected by federal officials was a masterpiece. In fact, it appears most of them were not. And lets face it we all know paint isn’t a solution even if it is expensive paint. That said -
Some bike lanes are excellent.
Most though are paint applied to leftover pavement by a committee that believes bicycles are approximately nine inches wide.
The term bike lane covers facilities so different that treating them as one safety category is nearly meaningless. A lane separated from high-speed traffic by curbs, parked cars, or a substantial buffer is not the same thing as a white stripe painted beside vehicles traveling 50 miles per hour.
One separates traffic.
The other informs the EMTs where the ambulance should begin looking.
A 2026 naturalistic study published in Traffic Injury Prevention examined 8,753 vehicle-passing events recorded over nearly 9,900 kilometers of bicycle travel. After adjusting for other roadway factors, researchers found that painted bicycle lanes were associated with motorists passing about 0.31 meters closer, roughly one foot, and approximately 1.36 meters per second faster, about three miles per hour, than on roads without bicycle infrastructure. Road shoulders were also associated with high passing speeds without a meaningful increase in clearance.
It also does not prove that every painted lane is dangerous.
What it does suggest is that paint changes driver behavior, and the change is not always favorable.
There is a corollary to this that we do need to surface at this point though , and that is "some people feel that they need to have a bike lane and that any bike like is better than none" - (Paraphrased from John Schubert)
A motorist sees the stripe and thinks:
“The cyclist has a lane.”
What the motorist sometimes means is:
“Therefore I may remain in my lane and pass at the speed of commerce.”
The cyclist, meanwhile, gets to enjoy a close-up view of a door handle.
Paint can organize traffic on low-speed streets. It can mark continuity through an intersection. It can help establish where different road users should travel.
What paint cannot do is physically stop a vehicle.
This is not an ideological flaw. It is one of paint’s traditional characteristics.
Federal guidance issued before the recent webpage changes already recognized that bicycle-facility selection should depend on vehicle speed, traffic volume, road geometry, and expected users. Federal research has also evaluated separated lanes as a distinct treatment rather than assuming every bicycle symbol on asphalt offers identical protection.
On a calm residential street, paint combined with traffic calming may be perfectly reasonable.
On a 50-mile-per-hour arterial, paint remains stubbornly unable to negotiate with kinetic energy.
๐๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ต ๐๐ป๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ป๐ณ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฐ๐๐๐ฟ๐ฒ: what happens when a lane ends at the exact place where a rider most needs it.
A protected lane that disappears at the busiest intersection is still the transportation equivalent of a handrail that ends halfway down the staircase It was helpful until the precise moment it became most necessary.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฆ๐ต๐ผ๐๐น๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐ ๐ก๐ผ๐ ๐ฎ ๐๐ถ๐ธ๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฒ ๐ฆ๐ผ๐บ๐ฒ๐ผ๐ป๐ฒ ๐๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐๐ฐ๐น๐ฒ ๐ก๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ ๐๐
A great deal of what officials call bicycle infrastructure is actually residual pavement.
It is the asphalt left over after engineers finish allocating space for through lanes, turn lanes, medians, drainage, utility poles, decorative landscaping, and the municipal sign thanking the council member who approved everything.
Then someone notices a four-foot strip near the curb and says, “Could a bicycle go there?”
A bicycle can go almost anywhere briefly.
This does not make the location infrastructure.
Road shoulders collect broken glass, gravel, screws, muffler fragments, pieces of landscaping trailers, and the dead bodies (yes, I’ve found one) are available almost nowhere except the side of a highway.
๐๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ , ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ณ๐๐: a design flaw that survives three planning meetings, two consultants, and a ribbon-cutting.
That one fits on a sign.
A shoulder that begins at six feet may narrow to eighteen inches beside a bridge, disappear near an intersection, and reappear two miles later as though nothing happened.
A useful bicycle route needs continuous width, reasonable pavement, drainage, safe transitions, and intersection treatments. It must serve actual destinations. It must accommodate handcycles, cargo bikes, trailers, children, older riders, and people who do not consider hopping a curb an ordinary transportation maneuver.
A route that sends riders through a series of gates, tight turns, bollards, and abrupt crossings is not automatically protected.
Sometimes it is simply an obstacle course designed by someone who has never attempted it with panniers
.
๐๐๐ฌ๐ข๐ ๐ง๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ง๐๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ซ ๐๐ง๐๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ฌ: harsh wording, but sometimes the curb cut really does deposit you directly beneath a turning truck
Federal intersection guidance recognizes that the places where bicycle facilities meet crossings, turn lanes, roundabouts, and pedestrian areas require deliberate design. Conflict points do not vanish when the stripe reaches the corner.
This seems obvious.
So does putting the television remote in the same place every night, yet civilization continues to struggle
.
๐ง๐ฎ๐ธ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ฒ ๐ช๐ถ๐๐ต๐ผ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ
When there is no usable bicycle facility, riders still need somewhere to travel.
That somewhere is frequently the road.
๐๐๐๐ญ๐ก ๐๐ญ ๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฒ ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง: a little dramatic, although anyone who has followed a painted lane into a six-lane junction knows the feeling.
Under Texas law, a person riding slower than other traffic generally must stay as near as practicable to the right edge of the roadway. The law also contains exceptions, including when the rider is avoiding unsafe conditions, preparing for a left turn, passing another vehicle, or traveling in a lane too narrow for a bicycle and motor vehicle to safely proceed side by side.
The key word is ๐๐๐๐๐ก๐๐๐๐๐๐.
It does not mean:
“As far right as physically possible, including through glass, storm drains, potholes, parked-car doors, and the remains of somebody’s washing machine.”
It means reasonably capable of being done safely.
When a lane is too narrow to share, riding near its center can prevent a driver from attempting the classic Texas squeeze pass, in which the motorist tries to fit a truck, a bicycle, and three feet of legally desirable clearance into a space originally designed for one Chevrolet.
The cyclist is not “taking” the lane in the sense of stealing it and carrying it home.
The cyclist is controlling the lane temporarily because the geometry does not allow safe side-by-side travel.
That distinction matters.
So does evidence.
๐๐ซ๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ฃ๐จ๐ฒ ๐๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ง๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ: the version favored by people who have watched fatal investigations disappear behind the phrase “still ongoing.”
.
A test-track study involving 18 drivers examined how motorists passed a robot cyclist positioned at different locations in the lane while oncoming traffic approached. When the cyclist was farther left, passing safety margins decreased, particularly when oncoming traffic limited the driver’s room. Researchers concluded that both cyclist position and the timing of oncoming traffic influenced the risks of side-swipe, rear-end, and head-on conflicts.
That does not prove cyclists should hug the gutter.
It proves there is no single lane position that makes every bad situation safe.
Moving left may discourage an immediate squeeze and make the rider more prominent, but it cannot prevent an impatient driver from attempting a bad pass when oncoming traffic leaves inadequate room. Positioning must therefore be deliberate, predictable, and responsive to conditions.
The purpose of controlling a narrow lane is not to increase passing clearance while the motorist remains in that same lane.
The purpose is to communicate that the motorist must wait and make a proper lane change.
This concept can be difficult for drivers who believe the arrival of a bicycle suspends all rules concerning centerlines, sight distance, and oncoming vehicles.
Cyclists also have obligations.
Use the lane when safety requires it. Hold a predictable line. Avoid weaving in and out of parked cars. When a safe opportunity appears, move right where practicable and let waiting traffic pass.
Experienced touring cyclists and randonneurs often use a cooperative version of this approach. Its been called a lot of things but I prefer to call it ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
You control the lane through the blind curve, narrow bridge, debris field, or pinch point. Once the road opens and passing becomes safe, you facilitate the pass and give a wave.
The wave is important.
It says, “Thank you for waiting.”
It also says, “See? I was not attempting to overthrow the automobile.”
Taking the lane should be a safety technique, not performance art.
Lets face it, the reality is the cyclist doesn’t want to block cars any more than the cars want to be behind the cyclist, or for that matter have a visit from any 3 lettered government agency.
๐๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐ด๐ป ๐๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ ๐๐ป๐ท๐๐ฟ๐ฒ
The goal is neither passive gutter-hugging nor recreational obstruction. It is predictable positioning combined with ordinary courtesy, a concept once known simply as sharing the road before it became necessary to print it on thousands of signs.
๐ฉ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฏ๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ๐น๐ฝ๐ณ๐๐น, ๐ฏ๐๐ ๐๐ผ๐ผ๐ธ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐ ๐๐๐๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ถ๐ฎ๐น
Supporters of aggressive lane positioning often emphasize visibility, and they have a point.
The National Transportation Safety Board found that roughly one-third of motorists involved in fatal overtaking crashes reported that they did not detect the cyclist before the collision.
Being farther into a driver’s natural field of view may make a cyclist easier to notice than riding inches from the curb.
But this should not become another excuse to place the entire burden on the rider.
Cyclists already use headlights, taillights, reflective ankle bands, fluorescent jerseys, reflective vests, reflective helmets, and enough blinking electronics to qualify as a small airport.
At some point, the problem is not that the cyclist has failed to glow.
The problem is that the driver has failed to look.
No lane position guarantees detection. No vest can penetrate a phone screen. No flashing light can overcome a driver who is staring into the center console trying to locate a podcast about mindfulness.
Visibility helps.
Attention is still required.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐น๐ฒ๐๐ฒ ๐ ๐ผ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐๐บ
The FHWA webpage changes deserve criticism not because every item on the old list was perfect, but because technical information should be examined openly rather than quietly removed in response to political branding.
A safety measure can be overgeneralized.
A design can be misapplied.
A federal recommendation can deserve revision.
That revision should occur through evidence, updated criteria, and public explanation.
Deleting links is not peer review.
The former bicycle-lane fact sheet remains accessible as a PDF and states that bicycle facilities can reduce conflicts between motor vehicles and cyclists, particularly where physical or spatial separation is appropriate. The agency’s own research materials on separated lanes, intersection design, and crash-modification factors also remain available in various locations, although the public pathway to finding them has become less straightforward. The National Transportation Safety Board, which is independent of the Department of Transportation, continues to publish its bicyclist-safety research and recommendations.
States and local governments also retain substantial control over formula transportation funding. Federal budget materials for fiscal year 2026 continue to describe roughly $1.5 billion for Transportation Alternatives, including projects intended to provide safe routes for people who do not drive.
So the situation is not:
“The federal government has outlawed bike lanes.”
The situation is closer to:
“The federal government has changed its discretionary priorities and begun hiding some of its own bicycle-safety homework.”
That is less cinematic, but more accurate.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐จ๐๐ฒ๐ณ๐๐น ๐ ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ป๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐๐
We do not need to defend every bicycle project ever built merely because the secretary mocked bicycle lanes.
Some projects deserve defending.
Some deserve rebuilding.
Some deserve the quiet removal of a congratulatory plaque followed by several apologies.
The correct standard is not whether a project contains paint, planters, plastic posts, or the word equity in a grant application.
The standard is whether it works.
Does it reduce dangerous conflicts?
Does it slow turning vehicles?
Does it continue through intersections?
Does it connect people to places they need to reach?
Can an older rider use it?
Can a child use it?
Can someone on a handcycle fit through the barriers?
Does it prevent motorists from passing inches away at high speed?
Or does it begin abruptly, end mysteriously, and leave the cyclist beside six lanes of traffic with a sign reading “BIKE ROUTE” and the hopeful expression of a golden retriever?
This is where the alternate definitions of DEI become useful.
A lane that directs riders into a turning conflict is ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ด๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ ๐๐ป๐ด๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ด, ๐๐ป๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ.
A facility that stops at every major crossing is ๐๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ต ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ ๐๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป.
A shoulder full of broken glass marketed as a bicycle network is ๐๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐ด๐ป๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ฎ๐ป๐ด๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐๐ฎ๐น๐.
A fatal crash followed by months of silence is ๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ ๐๐ป๐ท๐ผ๐ ๐๐บ๐บ๐๐ป๐ถ๐๐, or at least the appearance of it.
And a design failure known for years but left unfixed because every agency claims it belongs to another agency is ๐๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐น๐ ๐๐ป๐ด๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ถ๐ณ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ.
Satire works because the real explanation is often even more absurd.
๐ช๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ถ๐น๐น ๐ก๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ป
The federal website controversy does not change the reforms Texas needs.
Texas should establish a measurable statewide safe-passing distance. “Safe” cannot remain a matter of individual interpretation by a motorist whose passenger-side mirror just brushed someone’s elbow.
Texas should revive stop-as-yield legislation. House Bill 4868 and Senate Bill 864, introduced during the 2025 legislative session, would have allowed cyclists to treat certain stop signs as yield signs under specified conditions.
Texas should require independent prosecutorial review of fatal crashes involving cyclists, pedestrians, wheelchair users, road workers, and other vulnerable road users. Families should receive timely public status reports and an explanation when a case is closed without charges.
Driver education should address safe passing, turning across bicycle traffic, dooring, distraction, and the actual meaning of as near as practicable.
Infrastructure funding should prioritize complete routes appropriate to the road’s speed and volume. Separation belongs where speed differences are high. Low-speed shared streets should actually be low speed. Intersections should be designed as part of the route rather than treated as brief interruptions in the architect’s rendering.
Crash data and investigative outcomes should be publicly searchable.
Most of this is not ideological.
It is geometry, speed, visibility, law, and institutional follow-through.
A bicycle does not become safer because a government webpage calls its lane proven.
It does not become less safe because someone deletes the webpage.
The pavement remains where it was.
The traffic remains where it was.
The cyclist still has to get home.
๐๐๐ฐ๐น๐ถ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ถ๐น๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฅ๐ผ๐ฎ๐ฑ ๐ ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ ๐ง๐ผ๐ผ๐ธ ๐๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ถ๐
There is one final historical joke in calling bike lanes an alien ideological project.
American cyclists were major supporters of the late-nineteenth-century Good Roads movement. They organized and campaigned for smoother, more reliable roads before automobiles dominated transportation.
Motorists inherited those improvements and eventually behaved like the family member who moves into the house, changes the locks, and tells everyone else they are blocking the driveway.
Cyclists are not visitors to the road system.
They were arguing for better roads before drivers had cupholders.
So call bicycle facilities DEI if that helps the press release.
Just use the correct definition.
๐๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐ด๐ป ๐๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ ๐๐ป๐ท๐๐ฟ๐ฒ.
Sometimes they kill.
The answer is not to defend every stripe of paint, nor is it to erase decades of research because a bicycle lane has become politically unfashionable.
The answer is to build facilities that work, write rules people can measure, investigate deaths transparently, and acknowledge that controlling a narrow lane may sometimes be the safest available choice when the government has provided no better one.
The cyclist today is trying to survive the design.
[Note: if you appreciate this article or at least are generally amused by it please like and share!]
Articles Cited or otherwise referenced in the creation of this posting are below
Federal Highway Administration. (2022). Bicycle lanes: Proven safety countermeasures (FHWA-SA-21-051). U.S. Department of Transportation. https://highways.fhwa.dot.gov/.../Bicycle%20Lanes_508.pdf
Federal Highway Administration. (2022). Improving intersections for pedestrians and bicyclists (FHWA-SA-22-041). U.S. Department of Transportation. https://highways.fhwa.dot.gov/.../2022-06/fhwasa22041.pdf
Federal Highway Administration. (2024, March–April). Separated bike lanes: Making roads safer for bicyclists. Innovator, 17(101). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/.../innovator/issue101/page_02.html
Hamm, L., & Miller, M. (2026). Bicyclist overtaking in naturalistic riding data: Speed, clearance, and implications for injury risk. Traffic Injury Prevention, 1–10. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2026.2686799
National Transportation Safety Board. (2019a, November 5). Bicyclist safety on U.S. roadways: Crash risks and countermeasures (Safety Research Report SS-19-01). https://www.ntsb.gov/.../safety.../Pages/DCA18SS002.aspx
National Transportation Safety Board. (2019b, November 5). NTSB says changes to roadway design, collision avoidance systems, more helmet use needed to address increase in bicyclist fatalities. https://www.ntsb.gov/.../press.../Pages/NR20191105.aspx
Rasch, A., Boda, C.-N. ร
., Thalya, P., Aderum, T., Knauss, A., & Dozza, M. (2020). How do oncoming traffic and cyclist lane position influence cyclist overtaking by drivers? Accident Analysis & Prevention, 142, 105569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105569
Rose, J. (2026, July 23). DOT cranks up its campaign to strip bike lane references from federal websites.
NPR. https://www.wvxu.org/.../dot-cranks-up-its-campaign-to...
Texas Legislature. (2025a). House Bill 4868: Relating to allowing a bicyclist to treat certain traffic-control devices as a yield sign. https://capitol.texas.gov/.../89R/billtext/html/HB04868I.htm
Texas Legislature. (2025b). Texas Transportation Code, Chapter 551: Operation of bicycles and mopeds, golf carts, and other low-powered vehicles. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/tn/htm/tn.551.htm
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (2025). Budget estimates: Fiscal year 2026. https://www.transportation.gov/.../FHWA_FY_2026_Budget...
