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.
Widening roads is not fixing infrastructure.
its almost like the people that end up spending the money don’t really want to fix the problem.
Oh you can win.
Start building walkable and cyclable cities. Take a hint from the Netherlands, the entire country is like that and it works. Doing mere cities like that should be no problem for the mighty America
“the largest investment in public transit in American history”
5 times 0 is still 0.
time bomb
… I don’t think I would specify the ‘time’-part when describing a bomb that is already mid explosion, feels like an irrelevant detail.
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.
L take. Especially in the western states where up to half of the states land is taken up by natl parks they have no governance over. Large tracts of land unable to be developed actually hurts making smaller more walkable neighborhoods, when you have to pack everyone in half the land the state should have.
