The factor that most likely prevents states from widening roads to double-size lanes is the option a) eliminate costs.
the construction of the interstate highway network was authorized by the federal aid highway act of 1956, popularly known as the interstate and defense highways act of 1956.
the interstate highway system was created after the end of world war ii for military defense purposes. the project was requested by the main automotive companies of the time and promoted by president eisenhower being inspired by the german motorway networks (autobahnen).
although the construction of the network continues, it was officially declared finished in 1991 (however, 1.5 miles originally planned were not yet built in 2005. the initial estimated cost for the network was 25 billion dollars in 12 years, the final cost it was 114 and it took 35 years to complete it.
subsequently, the states concentrated on making roads considering the local demands of each state, but the federal funds for the construction of large interstate highways have been discontinued.
other options:
technology: there is better technology now than when the highways were built.
speed limit: each state define the speed limits. wider highways lanes are more secure than normal ones.
driver confusion: drivers must be prepared to drive in both kind of highways.

because he is that the right

many citizens are in danger of contracting a food-borne illness.

more people are living with chronic illnesses.

pathogens are becoming stronger and harder to defeat.

edge nuity

hello

question:

when would a new household be started?

a.when the oldest male died

b.when a man and a woman married

c.when the house could not hold everyone

d.when a child was born

answer: us d when a child was born

hope this have a great day and brainlest

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.