A recent letter writer to The Times seems to have a very narrow definition of “infrastructure.” He tells only part of the story about this recently passed bill.
He seems upset that only 45% of the funding goes to “infrastructure,” and that 55% goes to other “pet projects,” but he doesn’t clarify what these projects might be.
I am very curious about these “pet projects” he seems unhappy about. Is he referring to the $66 billion (according to CNN) for passenger and freight rail service? Is he thinking of the $42 billion for ports and airports? Maybe the $65 billion for updating and maintaining our electrical grid? Perhaps the $55 billion for water and sewage lines and access to clean water for all Americans? It could be that one of the “pet projects” he is referring to is the $65 billion to make sure that we all have access to broadband and the educational and economic benefits that would bring about. Possibly he doesn’t think the $7.5 billion for low emission buses and ferries is a valid expenditure, or the $39 billion for modernizing public transit.
Mary Certa, Crown Point