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.
Looking at my state:
I definitely disagree with using $4B for road improvements although I guess at least it’s less than half?
I suppose you could argue that as one of the worst states for traffic congestion, relieving that a bit will help air pollution, even if it’s helping cars, but I’m not even convincing myself here
Widening highways does not reduce air pollution, even if it reduced congestion, which it doesn’t. The only way to reduce air pollution from cars is to not drive them.
Reducing traffic jams certainly does decrease air pollution, assuming traffic remains the same. Given that traffic will nevertheless less remain horrific, Massachusetts has one of the better transit systems in the US, the recent transit zoning law, recent trends toward improving roads by reducing lanes and removing bottlenecks, and there’s at least $2B going to transit/cycling/walkability, there’s every chance traffic won’t increase.
Is there a source that says this?
Like, I’m thinking from my understanding of traffic and physics here. Lower speeds = more car density = more vehicles on a given stretch of highway, but also lower speeds = lower fuel consumption = less emissions/smog.
So if you had 100 cars driving down the highway, and 100 cars idling, the cars not in the traffic jam would emit more smog.
Traffic jams just emit a lot of smog because it’s when there’s the most amount of cars on the road.
Adding a new traffic lane = more speed and more cars = tons of smog
Good metaphor. I’ve always likened it to a good cop/bad cop scam, but your way makes the same point more gently.
But I want it ALL NOW!!!
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.
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.
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
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 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.
State of Nevada: “Am I a joke to you?”
Would it make you feel better that the people running Arizona’s infrastructure are the worst shitheads I have ever dealt with in my career?
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.
