No, but new highway expansions must include dedicated lanes for electric buses and carpools

There shouldn’t be any new high way expansion at all. Instead focus should be shifted towards modernizing, updating, and advancing the efficiency and comfort ability of public transport

If we increase funding for public transportation, that will become the better option and people won’t need to use the roads at all. The roads will serve as a passageway for the public transit rather than an alternative, so extra lanes are not needed.

It is more important to have public transport in cities than on highways, because highways tend to have less public transport needs

With more buses and carpooling on the roads, there will be less cars and less need for highway expansions.

Highways will lower the amount of space for pedestrians, and they'll also unintentionally target marginalised communities. Also, since when have highways worked efficiently?

A balanced approach can address congestion, economic needs, and environmental concerns simultaneously. High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and dedicated bus lanes move significantly more people per lane than general-purpose traffic lanes because they encourage carpooling and allow buses to bypass congestion. A single full bus can replace dozens of individual vehicles, reducing traffic and emissions without requiring everyone to give up driving.

Freight movement remains essential to the U.S. economy, with most consumer goods spending at least part of their journey on highways. In rapidly growing…  Read more states such as Texas, population growth continues to increase transportation demand, making some highway improvements necessary. However, simply adding general-purpose lanes often produces limited long-term congestion relief due to induced demand.

Lanes dedicated foro electric busses is a good idea but at the end of the day, expansion of highways is only a temporary fix to traffic and we would need to end up adding more lanes to the highway once it gets congested again in a few years. Investment in public transit (especially railways) saves money for citizens, is infinitely more efficient than individual cars, and significantly reduces emissions

While highways are still important, i would say upgrading current highways is a better option while the money left over should go in public transport. Mainly trains for long distance traveling

california's population is rapidly growing, however not everyone has access or can afford their own transportation. because of this, many californians rely on public transportation in order to get to work/school.

i think public transportation should be more emphasized now espeically with the way that gas prices are.

While electric busses and carpools are better for the environment, it doesn't address the issue that cities are becoming increasingly unwalkable and unlivable without some form of vehicle transportation. The environment for pedestrians becomes hostile as more and more roads are built rather than sidewalks or bike lanes.

At the end of the day, these are not as efficient as a long term project such as building a better railway system, each bus and carpool can still be a victim to traffic jams, accidents, and don't offer much on person per vehicle. Instead of expanding highways, create a network of railways which can carry much more people per vehicle.

I understand this view and it seems reasonable however this is actually wouldn’t be the best option. Let me Explain. As you said dedicated lanes on New highway expansions. This means that only on Highway expansions would they have an easier time. Put em on all the highways

Electric cars nowadays can drive by themselves and have nobody in the car with them. So yes they should have their own lane.

Carpool lanes already exist, and electric bus lanes won't be used unless local governments spend money on those busses. Instead directing these funds to public transport like metros, trains, trams and busses will ensure that those services are actually avalible and used.

For context Tennessee itself is filled with consistent traffic and at a serious risk for overcrowding

Absolutely not. There should be no requirement for lanes (just) for electric buses or carpools. These dedicated lanes would mostly go unused due to the the very low quantity of these buses in the US, and there would be no carpools due to the existence of services like Uber which pay drivers far more for their work.

However, the US is in need of walkable cities and better public transit (especially in certain cities like Houston). Individual states must consider how can they can make life easier for individuals without cars by creating bus routes, trams, rail networks, etc. so that fewer people are on the road, creating less congestion, which means less pollution and a far more enjoyable driving experience. It is possible to make both public transport and our roads equally appealing methods of travel.

Gasoline is a limited resource and there is no arguing that, and public transportation limits our overall resource use for transportation, no matter what way you cut it.

Including dedicated lanes for electric buses and carpools is not always the best choice for different climates, in Arizona having electric busses on every highway would make no sense. Instead they should focus on expanding and streamlining public transportation.

Focus more on the individual cars in which rolling booths should charge more for cars with fewer people in them. To offset the separation of individual driving between long roads.

If we work on public transport like high speed railways we won’t need highway expansions and additional bus lanes.

No, many drivers will violate the lane restrictions, and will just lead to more overcrowding on the freeways.

The expansion of highways, regardless of the mode included, will only create more traffic and increase emissions. People that have a car have no incentive to take a bus on the highway when they can drive themselves.

The federal government should be more focused on building railways for high-speed rail to decrease people's commute and lower carbon emissions on the road.

A strong counterargument in paragraph form is that expanding highways even with dedicated lanes for electric buses and carpools still reinforces the same car‑dependent system that created congestion and environmental problems in the first place. Critics argue that any increase in road capacity triggers induced demand, meaning more people drive, commutes lengthen, and congestion eventually returns. They also point out that highway expansions consume enormous public funds that could instead support high‑frequency transit, walkable infrastructure, or rail systems that move more people at lower…  Read more long‑term cost. Dedicated lanes sound like a compromise, but opponents note that these lanes are often under‑enforced, repurposed, or politically pressured into becoming general‑purpose lanes once traffic builds again. From this perspective, continuing to widen highways even with “green” or “shared‑use” lanes delays the shift toward sustainable transportation and makes it harder to meet climate and mobility goals. For these reasons, some argue that the only effective long‑term strategy is to stop expanding highways altogether and redirect resources toward transit‑first solutions.

Why waste more money and create more debt when you can just create high-speed rail, which is much more reliable long term, fuel efficient, etc.

Why do we need to add more lanes to the highway in the first place, do you really think that will fix traffic?

What electric buses? These new lanes would not be used for what you think they will be used for. All they will do is create another lane for traffic to become congested in. The best way to ease traffic on the road is to decrease the amount of vehicles using the highway, which can best be accomplished by investing in public transport that carries large amounts of people.

Banning highway expansions doesn’t make sense because people still depend on cars and highways for daily travel and shipping goods. But instead of just adding more regular lanes, new roads should include dedicated lanes for electric buses and carpools, which can move more people with fewer vehicles and reduce traffic and pollution.

We just become more and more dependent on oil. this is bad for the environment and public transit will benefit everyone. we're one of the only first-world countries without public transit and we're stuck with these ugly highways and no alternatives to just having your own car.

Highway expansion, even with dedicated lanes, is inherently flawed due to environmental justice concerns and induced demand.

There aren't enough bus-stops and places for people to actually find these buses to justify losing highway space.

Fuel prices are rising, thanks to wars in Iran and Ukraine, and worldwide consumers are increasingly seeking out renewable forms of energy to replace fossil fuels.

I agree that if we are going to expand highways there should be a dedicated lane for carpooling and electric buses because there are many who use those public transportations and many go through the highway, so a dedicated lane would make public transport easier and quicker.

There aren't enough bus-stops and places for people to actually find these buses to justify losing highway space.

even if there are special lanes, building new highways just makes more cars on the road and more pollution. We should spend money on better buses, trains, and public transit instead for those in need.

Buses driving in the same lanes as cars are dangerous. They take up a good amount of space but I don’t want to take away public transport so give them their own lane so it’s safer.

Any further expansions of the highway system, no matter the intention, further a consumer and local dependence of a car-centric system and individual automobile use. Funds should be directed toward walkabilty and public transport.

Dedicated lanes doesn't provide enough incentive to choose public transport over transporting themselves in a personal vehicle.

This still uses up valuable land and destroys environments crucial to many species of animals, plants, and fungi.

This policy should be implemented only if voted by residents, and once the observation period (or budget cap) is completed, residents should decide to continue it or not based on reports of effectiveness.

When you have trains and public buses, why need more highway upgrades and waste money on new infrastructure when we desperatly need money to fix trains and railway systems.

While it is important to have infrastructure for public transportation, but adding more highways doesn't entirely help with the issue of a car-centric country like America. it's just schtupid

I don't think there should be, because if we made all cities walk-able, then we wouldn't even need electric buses or carpools.

Because I feel like public transit and walkways provide better and more efficient forms of transport for civilians especially in urban sprawls.

New car pool and bus lanes will just be taken advantage of by majority of regular drivers. Therefore it won’t actually improve traffic it will just make it more congested.

We don’t need more lanes for specific cars, every car can drive on road and more importantly we should focus on bringing more railroads to the United States for public transportation

Many highways do not have electric bus or carpool lanes. Not necessary and will likely cause more accidents.

doesnt solve the problem of a lack of activity, increased obesity chances and a lack of mobility within the city and or without a car

If people can’t get somewhere with their car or don’t own one they should be able to get somewhere with a bus or carpool

A strong counterargument is that adding more highway lanes even for buses and carpools often leads to induced demand, where increased road capacity encourages more driving and eventually brings congestion back. Instead of expanding highways, investing directly in public transit and existing infrastructure could reduce traffic and emissions more effectively.