A path to safer roads
Many roads in Bluefield, West Virginia, were created in the 1800s. Back then, the former coal town wasn't full of cars and trucks like it is today. Traffic was measured and less frequent. Sidewalks weren't essential.
But today, those same roads are crumbling under the pressure of vehicle congestion and the impact of weather and climate. It's not safe — many residents have to walk in the streets or in the grass along roads of the college town to get around. Accidents are frequent and tragic.
Until now.
Three years into the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s rollout, many places like Bluefield are finally receiving grants that could go toward fixing roads, adding safety measures and building sidewalks.
Much of this taxpayer money went unused in the early phase of the bill, according to a Paste BN investigation in February. The Paste BN analysis found that in the $5 billion Safe Streets and Roads for All program, most of the money doled out had gone to more affluent counties with lower fatality rates.
But in the months after Paste BN's investigation, the grants given out to rural areas like Bluefield almost doubled, data released this fall shows. This means more infrastructure projects are finally coming to some of America's hard-to-reach towns.
👋 Nicole Fallert here and welcome to Your Week, our newsletter exclusively for Paste BN subscribers (that's you!). This week, we talk with Paste BN data reporter Austin Fast about his investigation into a program meant to make America's streets safer.
Here are a few more headlines I've read this week from Paste BN:
- Schools are scrambling to find special education teachers.
- The "diploma divide" helped steer Trump back to the White House.
- Wildfires are burning on both coasts. Is climate change to blame?
- Here's how trad wives may have influenced female voters.
- Does the NFL have a special-teams bias when hiring head coaches?
'Driving' a conversation about safe roads
In August 2023, Austin Fast wanted to examine the newly minted 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which called for more than $1 trillion in projects across dozens of new programs, including in the Department of Transportation. He sifted through the bill and found the Safe Streets and Roads for All program: "It stuck out as unique because it's different from other federal grants, because even American's smallest towns could apply. You don't have to be New York City. You can be in the middle of nowhere and get federal dollars to make your roads safer."
Though that was a strength of the program, it was also a weakness: Most initial grants weren't going to low-population or rural areas, Fast's analysis found. And a lot of process and expertise was required to ask for this money, adding another roadblock to low-resource communities looking for a better path. In areas like these, "you don't have someone driving the conversation on traffic safety," he said.
Fast published his investigation into Safe Streets in February. He found that during the first two years of the program, most of the cash awarded landed in more affluent counties with lower fatality rates.
"We wanted to look at a bipartisan law and check: Is the government going to do what it says it's going to do with over a trillion of our taxpayer dollars?" he said. Something unexpected he found was how much money reserved for the grants was left on the table because of a lack of awareness the program even existed among potential beneficiaries.
"This is free money! What do you mean you can't get enough people to apply?" Fast said were his reactions. Many cities have traffic safety advocates or dedicated grant writers who do the work of finding grants like these. But low-income towns and Native American communities often lack the personnel dedicated to finding help. This means they don't even know to ask for the money that has been reserved for communities like theirs.
"It's a terrible pattern. ... It was surprising how many people living there didn't realize the Navajo Nation has such a high rate of traffic deaths," he said.
Then Transportation Department released an updated report of more than $1 billion in new grants in September. As any skilled reporter does, Fast checked back on his initial reporting. He found a big change: Rural towns plagued by deadly roads won nearly $350 million this year, a dramatic turnaround. The government also made the application easier, alleviating the burden for towns in need to ask for help.
"These small towns don't have grant writers with the resources," Fast said. "Now, by the third year (of the program), they got planning dollars and implementation dollars that can actually get shovels in the ground."
Fast got on the phone. He asked the Transportation Department why the changes were made. Though his reporting wasn't cited, he found "all the points they're making now were the points his Paste BN investigation made at the start of the year."
Paste BN's attention to accountability is important, Fast said.
"The month after our story came out, Congress allowed the Department of Transportation to change how they split up the money," Fast said. "After the story came out in February, most of the increase in grant money, if not all, went straight to rural areas."
Two more years of this program are funded, and Fast will be watching closely how the new makeup of Congress will affect the dispersal of the Safe Streets grants, especially as Republicans look to cut back federal spending. But these programs take time to yield results, he said.
"It takes awhile to build new roads," Fast said. "It's just getting underway. We won't see the effects of this for a couple of years. But the communities that want the money know it's going to mean change."
Thank you
Austin's diligence speaks to the high caliber of Paste BN's reporters. I'm grateful for his work, which would not be possible without support of readers like you.
Best wishes,
Nicole Fallert