The City of Portland says a project that would have transformed North Broadway into a family-friendly, civic main street is now on pause due to funding uncertainties.
You might have already heard that a provision in President Donald Trump’s budget bill passed by Congress last week included a complete rollback of a Biden-era transportation grant program. As BikePortland reported in March 2024, Portland received $488 million through the US Department of Transportation’s Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods grant program. $450 million of that was for the I-5 Rose Quarter project and $38.4 million was for the the Portland Bureau of Transportation’s Broadway Main Street & Supporting Neighborhood Connections project.
The lion’s share of the I-5 Rose Quarter’s $450 million has now gone back to the feds, and now I’ve confirmed PBOT’s funding for Broadway is also likely gone.
Reached today via email, PBOT Communications Director Hannah Schafer told BikePortland that the money might no longer be available.
“We are disappointed to share that the $38 million in federal funding for our Lower Albina Streetscape Project (aka Broadway Main Street & Supporting Neighborhood Connections project) appears to have been rescinded last week as part of the federal reconciliation bill,” Schafer said via email this morning.
The project would have allowed PBOT to extend a separate project, the Broadway Pave and Paint (which is locally funded and moving along nicely) west from NE 7th Avenue all the way to the Broadway Bridge. At a meeting in 2023, a PBOT staffer told an advisory committee that the goal of the project was to create a streetscape that would allow someone to, “take a pleasant walk with their young child from NE 7th to Waterfront Park.”
Project elements were set to include: a new, raised bikeway protected from auto users by a planted median; multiple improved pedestrian crossings; a redesign of the Broadway Bridgehead at N Larrabee; improved access to Rose Quarter Transit Center, and more.
Now it’s unclear if the project will ever move forward. And it’s all because of the Trump Administration’s embrace of culture wars and irrational and infantile fear of “equity.” To the current administration, livable streets where you can safely walk with your grandchildren are nothing more than a nefarious plot by liberal Portlanders hellbent on forcing everyone to enjoy their lives outside of cars.
Like much of what comes from the White House these days, the language in the budget bill that slashed this and many other major infrastructure projects across the country was vague and has so far lacked detailed follow-through. This means grant recipients are left in limbo and must plan for the worst-case scenario regardless of what happens next.
PBOT’s Schafer said, “Though we have yet to receive formal notice from USDOT, the bureau is working to determine next steps and will provide more information when it is available.”
The rescission is part of 126 active federal grants totaling $387 million that the City of Portland is having to re-evaluate to make sure they don’t run afoul of new Trump Administration policies around equity and social justice. According to a statement from the City Administrator Michael Jordan, “Portland is facing challenging decisions about how to respond to the Trump Administration’s demands that cities eliminate some policies and programs designed to help Portlanders who are people of color, women, and other oppressed groups overcome hundreds of years of systemic discrimination.” Of the $387 million federal grants currently in play at the City of Portland, a new federal policy impact analysis reveals that 58 of them totaling $197 million fund transportation bureau projects and programs.
I haven’t learned how much work had already been done on the Broadway project, but Schafer added that, “PBOT remains committed to finding ways to improve the safety and function of this important corridor.”
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Sadly, as predicted — though not specifically this project. https://heregoestrouble.substack.com/p/rescinded-federal-funds-happy-new
I’m curious to know what the other frequent commenters who frequently tell me to vote for Republicans in order to punish Oregon Democrats for some grievance will think about this. Because this is, quite literally, what you get when you vote for Republicans.
Cancellation of projects the city, state and feds don’t have the money for? This is a budget surplus type project, not a funded by debt project and the feds were going to print money to pay for all this stuff. Left or right, it should be pretty unpopular to fund projects in a way that makes construction companies rich and the surrounding residents poorer via inflation or higher taxes.
What are you talking about? The feds clearly have plenty of money. Just look at how much they are throwing at ICE. They could also massivley raise taxes on the rich and have even more money. No one is buying your bullshit.
There is no reason to think a public sector construction project would affect inflation in a meaningful way, and given Oregon’s property tax structure this project is unlikely to inflict meaningfully higher taxes on the nearby residents either. It will likely benefit construction companies, but those companies also employ people who live in the community. We obviously shouldn’t be doing projects for the sole benefit of contractors, but I don’t really see how this project would fit that bill.
The skyrocketing deficit as a result of the budget bill which will end this project in the near term is a result of tax cuts for the rich, and should be understood as a huge negative for the financial health of the country, but that is mostly because it’s a massive revenue reduction – not because of excess spending. And in general, if the federal government operates at a deficit in pursuit of expanding the economy, it can be a net positive in the long run, as public sector spending on infrastructure has tons of direct and indirect economic benefits. I obviously don’t think the latest dud from the Feds is some kind of neo-Keynesian policy, but that’s because it’s running a deficit to finance a massive handout for the wealthy while cutting spending. It’s the worst of both worlds.
Because, of course, the only choice in our duopolistic kakistocracy is to vote for a corrupt corp-fascist Dem or a corrupt national-fascist Rep. /s
I came here expecting you to say that, and I was not disappointed.
Marxism isn’t an option. We know it doesn’t work without authoritarian forces.
My family fled marxist-stalinist sociopaths in eastern europe to be lectured by a ‘murrican who thinks that dems are”marxist”.
Your current family or relatives from the past?
So Marxism worked so well you fled?
I mean, are there any good Bookchin-esque politicians running locally or at the state level?
Nice to see Bookchin mentioned; influenced by Marx, of course, but, ironically, his ideas are more influential on the ground as a practical, democratic force for good – Rojava (NE Syria; look it up on wikipedia) all by itself imho is far more important a development than a bunch of masturbatory intellectuals arguing over leftist jargon in their ivory towers. In fact, there is a Bookchin-influenced gathering right here on the Sandy River in just a few weeks: https://givebutter.com/DPGWest
Also imho, you’d have to be insane to run for elected office these days given the conditions. I’d be afraid of being assassinated. Better to build outside the system and prepare for its inevitable collapse.
There have been plenty of progs/greens who primaried establishment Dems so there are options even for more hierarchical folk.
(Local social ecologists have been more interested in building community rather a genuine focus on dual power, IMO.)
So many that…you haven’t named any?
They would most likely point out that you’re conflating federal and local politics, goals and ability to do harm or good. If you’re deliberately conflating them to be provocative then okay. If it’s unintentional than I suspect you haven’t really understood any of the arguments that have been made in leveraging a better tomorrow from local politicians who have a one party monopoly of the system which delivers the poor results of any one party system.
And also, (and I can’t believe I’m going to say this) what Soren said. There are options besides the monofascist party (regardless of whatever they call themselves) if you can only free your mind enough to see.
Oh, and if this actually cancels the entirety of the Rose Quarter freeway widening than yay.
Well, I can’t say that I’m at all surprised by this response, though it is no less disappointing.
It is what you get, or do not get, when you rely upon federal money for local street improvements. Local infrastructure should be funded by local government.
Why? That doesn’t follow. The vast majority of our taxes are federal, so the vast majority of spending is federal. You’re making up a rule with no grounding, it doesn’t make any sense.
Most of our taxes are federal, but we still pay for parks, schools, and lots of other stuff locally.
It’s not entirely wacky to believe that federal taxes should pay for national things like an army and a diplomatic service and air traffic control, while paying for local stuff locally. I understand that’s not how things work currently, but it would be a logical way to structure things.
Hey, how about we get some sidewalks for my neighborhood first.
Thanks,
East Portlander
Why not both?
I want your neighborhood to have federally funded sidewalks too, but are you ready for tens of thousands of people to come to your neighborhood on the weekend?
Where are you getting your made up statistic from?
Guessing based on the traffic to the events at the Rose Quarter. The Blazers draw around 17,000. Some events, more. Moda capacity is 20k. Left Bank is booked out often. Sometimes multiple events per weekend.
Thats events at the Rose Quarter, a place for events.
Why in the world would a random neighborhood in East Portland get tens of thousands of people walking on the sidewalks?
Its weird how people argue that people in East Portland are for some reason less deserving of having a little bit of saftey while walking. The Rode Quarter area already has sidewalks. Sure, they could be better, but that doesnt and shouldnt mean those who live out east should have to walk on the road to get places.
And the way you worded your question makes it seem like that if the neighborhoods in East Portland got sidewalks, they would have tens of thousands of people come walking on them.
Its weird how people argue that people in East Portland are for some reason less deserving of having a little bit of saftey while walking.
No one is arguing this. This project was not competing with funding for East Portland sidewalks. The “fighting for scraps” mentality, where people criticize every bit of progress because it is not benefiting them specifically doesn’t help anyone. This was federal RCP funds https://www.transportation.gov/reconnecting. This was not the city of Portland or state of Oregon deciding to screw over East Portland.
In the mean time, a significant amount of resources, including City of Portland putting in the effort to secure federal funding, has gone into improving 82nd ave. Several councilors have made efforts to fund the SIPP https://www.portland.gov/council/districts/4/mitch-green/news/2025/5/8/press-release-councilors-prioritize-sidewalks. Some have floated the proposal that the city is responsible for sidewalk maintenance and repair- currently Portland residents are responsible for repairing damaged sidewalks- which can easily go over 10k.
I hope East Portland gets sidewalks too, and I’m all for proposals to make this happen, but I am not going to dump on other projects that people have worked hard get funded. If you also want East Portland to have sidewalks, then you could start by taking the time to figure out how things work.
And the people who benefit the most from our zero-sum system love to patronizingly complain that those who lack the most basic forms of human infrastructure are unfair in their criticism of continuing inequity.
The people who benefit the most from our zero-sum system…
love to see people fighting over the spare change needed for new sidewalks, a bike lane or a transit lane, while they extract the vast majority of capital from the system through car and truck consumables and infrastructure.
Induced demand? People seem to accept wild claims about it in other transportation contexts, so why not here?
Let me sign that petition to the orange don requesting that his administration finance those sidewalks!
Sorry friend, this city has made it very clear how it really feels about east Portland.
It doesn’t even capitalize “east” any more…
Let’s do safer streets everywhere! Our advocacy for East Portland does show progress. I’m looking forward to celebrate a few recent wins July 27 at this year’s Sunday Parkways east event!
https://www.portland.gov/sunday-parkways/east-event-2025
Some features showcased by the route…
Safer Outer Stark (2026) https://www.portland.gov/transportation/pbot-projects/construction/safer-outer-stark
100s Neighborhood Greenway, including 106th/Wasco path (2022) https://www.portland.gov/transportation/pbot-projects/construction/east-portland-access-employment-and-education-4m-100s-and
Bike Lanes and Improved Crossings from the East Glisan Street Update Phase 2 (2022) https://www.portland.gov/transportation/pbot-projects/construction/east-glisan-street-update-ne-102nd-162nd-avenues
4M Neighborhood Greenway Phase 1 – sidewalks, bike lanes (2022) https://www.portland.gov/transportation/pbot-projects/construction/4m-neighborhood-greenway-se-130th-avenue-se-174th-avenue
150s Neighborhood Greenway, including paving of gravel street (2022) https://www.portland.gov/transportation/pbot-projects/construction/east-portland-access-employment-and-education-4m-100s-and
New sidewalks on SE 130th Ave. (2021) https://www.portland.gov/transportation/walking-biking-transit-safety/safe-routes/news/2023/12/5/pbot-safe-routes-school#:~:text=SE%20130th%20Avenue%20sidewalk%20infill,and%20Menlo%20Park%20Elementary%20School.
Holladay-Oregon-Pacific Neighborhood Greenway (2020)
https://www.portland.gov/transportation/pbot-projects/construction/hop-neighborhood-greenway-gateway-transit-center-ne-128th
All cars and trucks, all the time. And only gasoline-powered ones! That’s the Trump vision of the future.
Can we infer that the (much larger) pool of Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods funds for the I5 covers is also gone? If so, it makes sense to contrast what PBOT and ODOT, respectively, are doing with other parts of their projects. ODOT is pushing full steam ahead with the freeway widening despite having a huge budget shortfall and laying off much of the operations staff. ODOT should just pull the plug on the RQ project now.
Yes, that grant that ODOT received for the Rose Quarter freeway caps was from the same grant program, and was also rescinded by this same bill. I agree, ODOT should call it a day and just stop work forever on the deeply-flawed Rose Quarter project.
This is such a cool project. Hopefully they can shelf it for 8 years and we can come back to it again or find some other way to fund it. It’s crazy that our funding works on the whims of election results even after they’ve already been funded.
LOL. Blame Trump for everything. Come on Portland, there is a LOT wrong going on here in this city and Trump is not stopping you from fixing it.
Who’s blaming Trump for everything?
I’m not.
Michael is.
So you’re saying the federal government still would have clawed back Biden-era transpo-program project funds from local governments even if Trump had lost? If so, explain how you arrive at that claim.
When can we admit the DEI policies have been successful and are no longer needed?
Surely after 10+ years we can admit success and that Portland’s organizational cultures have been changed successfully?
If not, how many more years are required?
What should the end goal look like?
I think these are really great questions Middle o the Road Guy. I think one reason MAGA is happening is because the left hasn’t asked questions like this and we haven’t been critical enough of our own values and policies. I have been dreaming about a credible voice on the left being able to stand up and ask these type of questions, but the problem is that the left will eat its own and so everyone is afraid to even question things like DEI progress.
Now please don’t misunderstand me here. I’m not saying I’m against DEI! I’m saying that the left needs to stop and allow for corrections and improvements on new initiatives like this so the policies are equipped to stand up to scrutiny and prove their value.
There are plenty of folks on the left who are doing just that – to my mind, the problem’s source is that the Dem party (etc) is always in search of policies that have the veneer of progressivism while not upsetting the donor class. DEI (though it’s an incredibly broad term) has been one of the largest victims of this in the past 10-15 years. Because the ultimate goal is to keep the cash flowing, it waters down the influence of the true believers who are actually trying to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in society. It suddenly doesn’t matter as much to create actionable targets, rigorous standards, etc. It’s more about keeping that big money machine goin’, and they’ll always be able to find some old neoliberal policies in the dustbin, polish them off so they can call them “new”, and the articles and policy proposals will flow. See “Abundance” for the most recent pivot…
First let’s be clear which policies you feel are DEI. Here’s the list: https://www.portland.gov/policies
It would be the policies where minorities (specifically black americans) receive additional points in an interview just because of their skin color.
Or the policies (actually programs) where minorities (specifically black again) are given preferential selection.
As long as the City continues to pick winners and losers based on someone’s skin color, then there will never be success.
Real DEI programs do things like having double blind hiring, or on financial applications removing all references to someone’s gender or skin color for when they are considered.
So those are which ones on the list of city policies? It’s right there for you to specifically ID. And would you and Middle pick the same ones?
https://www.portland.gov/bhr/documents/core-values/download
Whether one believes in DEI or not it’s foolish to believe that the City doesn’t believe in it. It’s second to anti-racism (and before fiscal responsibility) and is integrated throughout all levels of City government.
Strawman much?
But OK — connect the dots with Middle’s original claim, which remains unsupported: In which city policies do you feel the city’s proffered “core value” of anti-racism actually is manifest? Would you and Solar and Middle all agree?
Straw man?? What in the world?
Okay, I’ll slow it down. I’ve been in various governments most of my adult life and it is very difficult to pick out a specific program on something that is so widespread and pervasive as DEI by using org charts that are provided to outsiders such as the one you are using. You’re asking an impossible question using incomplete data. No one can answer you because your data doesn’t reflect the totality of how the city works.
It is like asking why does 1 plus 1 equal three.
Heh, it’s not my data. Or alternately, it’s just as much yours as mine or any resident’s.
So despite your claimed insider status, even you are unable to pick out which city policies you feel are DEI or manifest DEI “core values.” But no need to feel alarmed (with the multiple question marks and all); it’s common.
On your analogy: I suspect we could agree that if folks with power and access were going around declaring that “1 plus 1 equal three,” it would become pretty danged important to apprehend that and ask why (and where they’re applying that assertion). If they declared an answer to be impossible, it would be a pretty good indicator that the alleged equation was never actually reached through math.
DEI is like that, I suspect, on both the pro and con sides. And/or it’s like an onion with only layers of signaling and signifying via squishy “core values,” “is committed to,” and similar unmeasurable terms along with the knee-jerk reactions they prompt. And/or it’s like those annoying selfie frames at tourist destinations. Pro people come along and snap a photo with a smiling face, con people with a frowning face (with examples of both in this very comment thread). But in this case, the destination is little more than a selfie frame and does precious little to make any lives better.
More along those lines in this edition of my (free) Substack — though its context is public outreach for local government projects in Anywhere, USA, not specifically Portland.
Your suggestions don’t address the disparate impact of race, gender, etc. on life circumstances/standing that exist when applying for employment or financial transactions.
So a ranking matrix with values assigned to those traits?
The fact that you have a city job proves that the hiring system is badly flawed , DEI or not.
My tax dollars paying people to post on the internet all day while at work bothers me a lot more than hiring some Black Americans who are more than qualified to do what you must do.
I don’t need to define them. I need to know when they are no longer needed because the city was successful with the implementation. When are they no longer needed?
Strawman much?
You’ve been challenged not to define them, but to pick relevant policies from a list where they’re already defined. If you can’t, by what means would you expect anyone to tell you anything about them?
Isn’t it interesting that, pro or con, folks recoil at the prospect of trying to apprehend anything concrete about “DEI policies”? More along those lines in this edition of my (free) Substack — though its context is public outreach for local government projects in Anywhere, USA, not specifically Portland.
LOL, of course this was all an advertisement for yourself. No wonder you just kept repeating the same thing over and over. It wasn’t an honest attempt at dialogue.
No, it remains a challenge to you — which you appear eager to wriggle from. The Substack goes further and more specifically than is appropriate here, but it’s a vehicle for dialogue — with capacity for comments and everything.
Meanwhile, that inventory of city policies is still there, waiting for you to pick. Or you could “honest[ly] attempt” dialogue on the idea that, pro or con, there’s little that’s concrete about DEI. After all, even you as a claimed insider strawmanned over to measurement-defying “belief” when the challenge was about how-shit-gets-done policies.
I remember reading about a project a year or two ago where PBOT removed bike lanes explicitly because of the race of someone complaining about them. However, I didn’t see that policy written down in any of the PBOT or city policy documents you linked to.
If you don’t know what project I’m talking about, I could probably track it down, or maybe someone else here has a link.
Sounds like it’s probably this: https://bikeportland.org/2023/11/02/heres-how-pbot-says-they-dropped-the-ball-on-ne-33rd-381494
Yes, that’s the one. The point being that an inability to point at a written policy does not mean that such a policy does not exist informally, so your repeated criticism of others on that issue does not resonate with me.
Consider that if it exists only informally, that’s a strong signal that it’s something other than policy.
Meanwhile, “explicitly because of the race of someone complaining” seems hard to support. How do you?
In that article the guy from PBOT said:
“It just happened to be, there’s also the specific character of this location as well.”
If you followed the story, you knew exactly what he meant (which JM noted in the story).
That’s more explicit than these things usually are.
This was not some rogue PBOT staffer — this was a senior guy, who surely discussed it with the head of PBOT and very likely with the city commissioner in charge. You don’t just pull out freshly installed bike lanes on your own. It takes money, staff, machinery, work crews, and other resources. It takes approvals and leaves a paper trail.
Anyway, I’m not looking for an argument. That’s just how these things work. Not every policy is formalized in writing, especially not those that are discriminatory on their face.
So those words “also” and “as well.” They mean there was something else, something important enough to mention first. What was it?
But yeah, we’re gonna have to agree to disagree on policy and writing. If it isn’t written, it has a far worse chance of being applied consistently — so it isn’t policy. It could be other things such as ad-hoc, hair-on-fire, CYA, etc.
Seems like a more relevant question would be about which policies PBOT blew off to get into that jam in the first place.
I’m as disappointed as anyone that 33rd has the missing segment of bike lane since I often travel S from Marine Dr. to Holman on 33rd. It sucks to be taking the lane up the small hill between Lombard and Holman when I’m dragging ass on my last 2 miles instead of riding in a nice shoulder bike lane.
I don’t really see how the parochial interests of Concordia are so different from those of Irvington or the West Hills or Downtown or Laurelhurst, etc. which have routinely used their influence at city hall to effectuate their preferences. When this happened, nobody said it was ‘explicitly because of their race’. That the (contemporary) political power enjoyed by Concordia derives from a nascent social justice consciousness among the political class in Portland does not make it any more unseemly than the political string pulling that has always been a part of this (and other) cities. What I see is a bunch of people that tolerated casual corruption in city government until a Black neighborhood started getting into the game suddenly crying foul. I’m more interested in understanding how I can convince my Black neighbors that a bike lane on 33rd is desirable. And , more importantly, that expanding/widening I5 is bad for N/NE PDX just as (and for the same reasons that) the original construction of I5 was a tragedy. And also understanding why the 33rd bike lane project wan’t nixed BEFORE painting the lanes.
I don’t think it was a neighborhood crying foul — I think it was one single household. If every household was given the same veto power that this one enjoyed, then fine. But if this household was treated differently because of race, then I am not cool with that.
If the neighborhood overall opposed the project, then I would hope (and expect) they would be afforded the same respect and voice as any other neighborhood, rich or poor. If you are arguing that communities should have more sway over projects there, then I am not going to disagree.
How many individual constituents does a councilor need to hear from before it counts as the ‘neighborhood overall’? I have no knowledge of what happened with the 33rd project beyond what was reported here and by WW. And I wish the lanes had not been removed. But the opposition to the 33rd project is fully consistent with opposition to the project on Williams and the project on 7th. Those efforts were definitely made by lots of people, so I can imagine many of the same people would similarly oppose the 33rd bike lanes.
More than 1?
You can just answer the question instead of channeling Jordan Peterson.
No one can credibly answer your question because you won’t specify which policies you feel are the DEI ones, even when presented with the city’s list of policies.
That abhorrence to get specific or accountable about DEI seems common to both pro and con, in my experience. I find it really interesting.
All of them. Tell me what the success criteria is and when they are no longer needed.
All the city’s policies? So policy TRN-1.05, street grades, from 1995: “Grades … shall not exceed 18%” (mostly). Apparently that’s DEI in your eyes. Any PBOT employees: Care to chime in about criteria and duration?
How long does it take to correct the institutional racism and suppression of black Americans that led to them starting in an inequitable position? Is a decade of DEI enough to correct hundreds of years of slavery and racism? How would you like to start designing metrics and analyzing data that will reach a reasonable, fair, and equality-minded answer?
Nothing will ever correct the past. All we can do is work towards a better future. The sooner we take race out of the equation (for anything) the better. That’s what the original DEI was about, taking race out of the equation, but it got twisted into becoming reverse-racism. Anytime someone is being selected as a winner or loser based on their skin color then everyone loses.
And here’s something no one has been able to define . . what constitutes a “black American”? Someone from Africa? What about whites or Arabs from Africa? Someone who has dark skin? What about people from India with very dark skin? Or aboriginal people from south west Pacific?
Taking race out of the equation isn’t going to happen overnight, but some organizations have already made strides and it will take time and effort.
Did they start from a more inequitable position than the Vietnamese immigrants (“boat people”) who arrived in the 1970s with zero, not even English language skills, many of who are descended from the exact same people (the Han) as my college roommate who was from a wealthy Chinese family? Or in a similar position than the kid across the hall who was the son of a very well off Nigerian doctor? Between the three of us, I had the least advantage in many respects.
The point being that everyone starts where they start and we need to deal with individual circumstances, not ones based on stereotype based on how we think people look.
The current Sellwood Bridge was million of dollars over budget and used a DEI contractor.
Slayden/Sundt who were the contractors are NOT a DEI contractor whatever that means.
The bullshit posted here sometimes is ridiculous. WTF are you talking about?
The overrun cost was 5.3% which is certainly reasonable for the size of the project.
I think we all need to understand, the US Federal overspending is being cut. In turn, this excess spending is being pushed to the various State, Local and other piggies on the federal tit
I don’t know about you, but I pay federal taxes, and, as a dedicated mammal, I expect those taxes to flow back into our communities through patriotic American glands.
However, you are welcome to go vegan and give up your heavily subsidized car anytime you like.
“your heavily subsidized car”
Is this one of those “the US military is a subsidy on car use” kind of things? I’ll bet if you add up all the spurious and indirect “subsidies”, you find that biking and walking are “subsidized” at a higher fraction of their cost than cars.
Transit certainly is, with TriMet directly subsidizing more than 70% of each ride before you even consider any of the vague indirect subsidies (such as roads, which are paid for largely by drivers and freight haulers and hardly at all by transit riders).
I’ll bet if you add up all the spurious and indirect “subsidies”, you find that biking and walking are “subsidized” at a higher fraction of their cost than cars.
I’m afraid this is a losers bet.
This is categorically false. Transit is a different story, but sidewalks are replaced like once every 100 years or more (assuming tree roots are well planned for). Most of the higher cost projects relating to pedestrian improvements are to prevent cars from killing pedestrians, which is hardly fair to allocate solely to pedestrians. Bike lanes are also extremely cheap to install, with the only real cost being repainting a street.
Transit is unambiguously subsidized in the narrow sense, but any serious consideration of the pros/cons of transit versus cars needs to consider land use patterns first and foremost. Good public transit allows for denser living and employment patterns, reducing infrastructure costs elsewhere and reducing the total distance people need to travel in general. Of course if you look at a per passenger mile statistics, it looks like transit does horribly while driving does great, but this misses the point.
Adding an additional $4-6 trillion to the deficit in order to give trillions to filthy fatcats while screwing working class people is the epitome of MAGAism.
Of course right after reading this I get honked at and yelled at for legally crossing NE Broadway. Projects like this are badly needed and it hurts to read things like this :/