It’s unfortunate there weren’t more restrictions for sure, but I think replacing bridges and tunnels should be ok, even if they’re for cars.
- Widening highways is worst, directly contradicting the climate goals of the bill
- Repaving needs to be part of a regular budget - irresponsible use of a one-time funding source
- New bridges - ok, needs to be done, is infrastructure, may not be possible in regular budget.
- obviously the best use is expanding transit, electrification, or other non-car transportation
So, why weren’t there more restrictions? Were they able to? Was it a condition of passing? Is it just practical that we have way too much infrastructure overdue for repairs or replacement?
So for years we’ve been threatened by our crumbling infrastructure, and now we’re threatened by fixing our infrastructure?
It looks like a no-win situation.
its almost like the people that end up spending the money don’t really want to fix the problem.
“the largest investment in public transit in American history”
5 times 0 is still 0.
The US doesn’t really need more infrastructure. It needs to de-infrastructure. Fewer bridges, and roads. Create large national parks, where development is not allowed.
