• @AA5B
    link
    46
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    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?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        25
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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.

            • Justin
              link
              fedilink
              English
              63 months ago

              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.

              • @AA5B
                link
                33 months ago

                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.

                • Justin
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  03 months ago

                  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

          • The Snark Urge
            link
            English
            43 months ago

            Good metaphor. I’ve always likened it to a good cop/bad cop scam, but your way makes the same point more gently.

  • Chainweasel
    link
    English
    183 months ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      163 months ago

      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.

    • @phreeknoOP
      link
      73 months ago

      its almost like the people that end up spending the money don’t really want to fix the problem.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      43 months ago

      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

  • @testuserpleaseupvote
    link
    73 months ago

    “the largest investment in public transit in American history”

    5 times 0 is still 0.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    63 months ago

    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.

  • @thisorthatorwhatever
    link
    -43 months ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

      • @afraid_of_zombies
        link
        13 months ago

        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?

    • RedC
      link
      fedilink
      -13 months ago

      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.