• AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    edit-2
    8 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?

      • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 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@lemmy.jlh.name
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 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@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                8 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@lemmy.jlh.name
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 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

                  • AA5B@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    In a traffic jam your car may only be idling but you’re making zero mph. Acceleration/braking both hurt efficiency, but that’s all stop and go traffic is.

                    In MA, one of the projects in the “Bridge” section are the bridges to Cape Cod. They are a bottleneck partly for very narrow lanes. I believe the replacement project is for the same number of lanes plus a bike lane but modern standards will remove the bottleneck. Anyhow, during summer, it’s very common for Friday after work to have 40+ mile traffic jams. Spending extra hours in stop and go traffic to make the same trip clearly hurts efficiency and air pollution of over just getting there.

                    Before anyone chimes in with it will just increase traffic - this is already constrained by the number of rentals available and limits on development on the Cape. There would be no place for more tourists to go

                  • frezik@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    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.

                    They emit more, but emit less per mile. Idling means they’re emitting a low level all the time just sitting there for zero miles traveled.

                    It could be even worse if it’s not idle, but rather start and stop. Engines emit a lot more when they’re accelerating up, and a lot less while cruising.

          • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 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.