If it was just fixing bridges, that would be understandable. However, states and localities are also spending it on expanding lanes, and all but ignoring public transportation.
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 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.
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?
Add comment