Report: Some Rural States Ahead of More Urbanized Ones in Reducing Transportation Emissions

There’s a difference in how urban and rural areas invest in their transportation infrastructure — and it’s not what you might think.

According to a report from Transportation for America, “Rural, conservative states seem to be pushing through projects that will yield less carbon emissions in the long term compared to their more progressive urban counterparts.”

As Benton Graham explains in Bloomberg CityLab, this is due to the fact that rural areas are by and large investing in maintenance and repairs of existing roads and infrastructure rather than expansion projects. “Based on projects that have been funded through the bipartisan infrastructure law so far, the report concludes that states like Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming will see a net reduction in emissions compared to the pre-IIJA baseline because they have invested big chunks of their infrastructure money toward simply fixing their existing roads with resurfacing projects.”

Even in states where lowering carbon emissions is not a priority, low populations mean there’s little demand to expand roadways. Meanwhile, some highly urbanized states continue to invest in highway expansion in lieu of other solutions to congestion. “While Florida and Texas fare the worst in future emissions rankings, California is also in the bottom six, and its infrastructure reflects that.”