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?
Because a center-right “democrat” president passed the republicans’ infrastructure bill for them.
It should have been a Republican infastructure bill because it was the bare minimum to keep the status quo, but instead the actual Republican infastructure bill was “build nothing and cut taxes for the rich.” Doing nothing is what they want, as close to literally as possible.
So on the scale of the real world of one party fighting literally paving roads and shoring up crumbling bridges, it was actually a successful bill to pass.
Acceptance of the DNC’s Price Is Right strategy of being $1 better than the GOP perpetuates them continuing that strategy. On an indefinite timeframe, that leads to the GOP getting big things like Dobbs and us getting things like [checks notes] more lanes on I-90 in some midwestern shithole.
“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.
I have some good news: those national parks were created over a century ago.
The US doesn’t have a problem with having large tracts of undeveloped space.
