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?
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.
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?