The US needs to invest in our infrastructure

[Meister]

I take it that you trust your politicians?

We have had the money for the infrastructure, but somewhere between point A to point B the money gets diverted. Just like the funds for the levee's that broke in La. during Katrina. Funny that.
Yet, you come in with a simple theme that we need to get the infrastructure in order.....like that hasn't happened over the last 50 years.
I know you don't understand, but the rest of us do. WAKE UP!

 

[Trajan]

you'll notice as usual no one will argue the information on the link, if anyone read it that is, willful ignorance being the order of the day.

I did notice that...Seems the other order of the day is to screech "crumbling infrastructure" ad infinitum to distract from the facts.

It seems that you have not disproved that the US needs to invest in the infrastructure with any facts at all.

If one does a Google search using the exact words "US Infrastructure", one will not find much or anything that our infrastructure doesn't need serious addressing. What a person will find is if the infrastructure isn't addressed soon, America will pay for it in many ways.

U.S. infrastructure crumbling

News Blog: U.S. infrastructure crumbling

U.S. Infrastructure in the Emergency Lane

U.S. Infrastructure in the Emergency Lane : IMT Industry Market Trends

The Case for U.S. Infrastructure Investment

The Case for U.S. Infrastructure Investment

U.S. Infrastructure Spending: How Much Is Enough?

http://www.uli.org/~/media/Document.../Magazines/UrbanLand/2009/April/Peterson.ashx

Case for U.S. Infrastructure Investing

Case for U.S. Infrastructure Investing - TheStreet

America's Aging Infrastructure: What to Fix, and Who Will Pay?

America's Aging Infrastructure: What to Fix, and Who Will Pay? - Knowledge@Wharton

Investing in Our Common Future: U.S. Infrastructure

Investing in Our Common Future: U.S. Infrastructure | NDN

Infrastructure Decay In The United States

Wooldridge -*Decline And Death Of US Infrastructure

if you truly believe that " US infrastructure crumbling" then you would also sppt. earnest and targeted projects, and that we get as much value as we can when it comes to targeting and funding these projects like say dropping bacon -davis which forces states to use the prevailing wages formula when it uses any federal funds, which in turn just assures a higher rate of compensation than they could find if not constricted. this inflates the cost, and gets us less for the dollar...you on board with suspending bacon-davis?

 

[kiwiman127]

I did notice that...Seems the other order of the day is to screech "crumbling infrastructure" ad infinitum to distract from the facts.

It seems that you have not disproved that the US needs to invest in the infrastructure with any facts at all.

If one does a Google search using the exact words "US Infrastructure", one will not find much or anything that our infrastructure doesn't need serious addressing. What a person will find is if the infrastructure isn't addressed soon, America will pay for it in many ways.

U.S. infrastructure crumbling

News Blog: U.S. infrastructure crumbling

U.S. Infrastructure in the Emergency Lane

U.S. Infrastructure in the Emergency Lane : IMT Industry Market Trends

The Case for U.S. Infrastructure Investment

The Case for U.S. Infrastructure Investment

U.S. Infrastructure Spending: How Much Is Enough?

http://www.uli.org/~/media/Document.../Magazines/UrbanLand/2009/April/Peterson.ashx

Case for U.S. Infrastructure Investing

Case for U.S. Infrastructure Investing - TheStreet

America's Aging Infrastructure: What to Fix, and Who Will Pay?

America's Aging Infrastructure: What to Fix, and Who Will Pay? - Knowledge@Wharton

Investing in Our Common Future: U.S. Infrastructure

Investing in Our Common Future: U.S. Infrastructure | NDN

Infrastructure Decay In The United States

Wooldridge -*Decline And Death Of US Infrastructure

if you truly believe that " US infrastructure crumbling" then you would also sppt. earnest and targeted projects, and that we get as much value as we can when it comes to targeting and funding these projects like say dropping bacon -davis which forces states to use the prevailing wages formula when it uses any federal funds, which in turn just assures a higher rate of compensation than they could find if not constricted. this inflates the cost, and gets us less for the dollar...you on board with suspending bacon-davis?[/QUOTE]

I have no problem suspending Bacon-Davis.
Furthermore, I have been pushing fixing the infrastructure since the Minneapolis bridge collapse in 2007. I used that bridge five days a week. In combination with the bridge collapse, I found the non-partisan/non-political Popular Mechanics article very troubling. Here is that link again.
Rebuilding America Special Report: How to Fix U.S. Infrastructure
United States Infrastructure Investigation - Rebuilding America - Minnesota Bridge Collapse - Popular Mechanics
Finally, this infrastructure problem the US has should never be a partisan issue. BUT because Obama has backed infrastructure improvements, it has become a partisan issue. What the hell is wrong with the people who have made it political? I have used several, several links backing my posts, not one is from a biased or even a political resource, just experts stating their case.

 

[kiwiman127]

Been served that dreck since the '70s....It's become cliché to anyone who has been paying attention with even a modicum of a critical eye.

Now that's a hoot.
In the 70's, the infrastructure wasn't an big issue then as the 50's were the US's big infrastructure age. It's been in the last decade that we have seen several infrastructure failures that have raised the levels of alertness towards the US infrastructure.

 

[Avorysuds]

I could have sworn that the Stimulus Bill was to "INVEST" in the infrastructure.

I do like the word "invest", it's the new buzz word from the democrats. I read in the paper where politicians from Wa. used that word after the pep rally from the president. Now I know what that closed door meeting with the democrats was about...or part of the meeting.

40% of it was tax cuts..and that's after it was cut in half by Republicans.

Prove there were 40% tax cuts... I dare you... In fact I double dog dare you.

 

[Oddball]

Been served that dreck since the '70s....It's become cliché to anyone who has been paying attention with even a modicum of a critical eye.

Now that's a hoot.
In the 70's, the infrastructure wasn't an big issue then as the 50's were the US's big infrastructure age. It's been in the last decade that we have seen several infrastructure failures that have raised the levels of alertness towards the US infrastructure.

Difference between me and you...I can remember back to the '70s and what politicians were yammering about...."Investing in infrastructure" has been a part of that standard political boilerplate for as long as I've been paying attention.

Likewise, "infrastructure" has been code for "pork barrel projects" for at least 30 years.

 

[kiwiman127]

Been served that dreck since the '70s....It's become cliché to anyone who has been paying attention with even a modicum of a critical eye.

Now that's a hoot.
In the 70's, the infrastructure wasn't an big issue then as the 50's were the US's big infrastructure age. It's been in the last decade that we have seen several infrastructure failures that have raised the levels of alertness towards the US infrastructure.

Difference between me and you...I can remember back to the '70s and what politicians were yammering about...."Investing in infrastructure" has been a part of that standard political boilerplate for as long as I've been paying attention.

Likewise, "infrastructure" has been code for "pork barrel projects" for at least 30 years.

During the 70's the focus was on mass transit systems which basically got it's boost from the oil embargo. During the 70's infrastructure investment actually was in the decline.
Infrastructure
And I do remember the 70's well. I remember the incomplete interstate metro bypass system and waiting in line for gas.

 

[Oddball]

Doesn't change the fact that politicians have been mewling about "investing in infrastructure" for several decades.

 

[kiwiman127]

Doesn't change the fact that politicians have been mewling about "investing in infrastructure" for several decades.

Mewling about and actually doing something are two different things, (see multiple non-partisan links in this thread). When aren't politicians crying and moaning about something?
I mean really?

 

[Oddball]

Oh, they've been doing something about it, alright.....Like diverting somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% of fuel taxes, collected under the pretext that they'd be used for roads and bridges (y'know...that "infrastructure" thing), into money wasting urban mass transit scams.

And Bubba Clintoon's 3¢ increase in the gasoline tax?...Straight into the general fund, to be spent on whatever.

Of course, YMMV as to what constitutes "doing something about it".

 

[kiwiman127]

Oh, they've been doing something about it, alright.....Like diverting somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% of fuel taxes, collected under the pretext that they'd be used for roads and bridges (y'know...that "infrastructure" thing), into money wasting urban mass transit scams.

And Bubba Clintoon's 3¢ increase in the gasoline tax?...Straight into the general fund, to be spent on whatever.

Of course, YMMV as to what constitutes "doing something about it".

Hmm, read this article and tell me what you think.

Survey: transit riders save thousands per year

Mass transit saves money

A study recently released by the American Public Transportation Association shows that commuters who use public transportation in 20 of the nation’s largest cities save, on average, about $9,500 per year. The study’s authors stated that to arrive at the amount of money saved by transit riders they looked at “the purchase of a monthly public transit pass and factor[ed] in local gas prices for December 7, 2010.” They also added in the national average for a monthly unreserved parking space in a downtown business district, which is about $160 per month or around $1,900 per year.

Despite reassurances from incoming House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman John Mica (R-FL) that access to rail will be expanded there are some concerns that federal spending for transportation will either be severely cut or redirected to other areas. This means that it is possible that fewer Americans instead of more will benefit from the savings comprehensive mass transit brings to a city.

Survey: transit riders save thousands per year - Houston Tomorrow

Oddball, do you live in a larger metropolitan area?

<snip>

 

[Intense]

I live in Minneapolis and right after the collapse of the 35W bridge that caused 13 people to lose their lives I started to look into the state of the US infrastructure.
The best and non-biased report I found came from Popular Mechanics.
It stated:
And not just in Minnesota. To many Americans, the I-35W disaster wasn’t an isolated tragedy, but the latest in a barrage of infrastructure failures—from the northeastern blackout in 2003 and the breached New Orleans levees in 2005 to falling concrete in Boston’s Big Dig in 2006. Perhaps the nation had passed a tipping point and was entering a period of steep physical decline.

When the bridge crumbled, Popular Mechanics was midway through a yearlong investigation of the country’s infrastructure, focusing on solutions being developed and put into practice right now, at locations such as a massive lock system on the Ohio River, an electric-grid research facility in Washington state and the country’s busiest port, located in California. We found promising technologies and innovative projects.

But there are larger lessons to be learned as well. Americans need to face the sobering reality that the country’s infrastructure is in trouble. Most of it was built in the 20th century, during the greatest age of construction the world has seen. The continent was wired for electricity and phone service, and colossal projects, including the Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate Bridge and the interstate highway system, were completed—along with thousands of smaller bridges, water tunnels and more. We are living off an inheritance of steel-and-concrete wonders, grander than anything built by Rome, constructed by everyday giants bearing trowels, welding torches and rivet guns.

To fix our infrastructure, from dilapidated levees to congested roadways and ports, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has estimated that the country needs to spend $1.6 trillion over five years. Only $1 trillion of that, the organization says, has been allocated or promised. Accepting those numbers, we need an additional $600 billion to reverse the slide of infrastructure, a figure that seems as difficult to produce as it is to comprehend.

Or is it? Spread over five years, ASCE is calling for $120 billion per year. The economic stimulus package signed into law in February is sending $168 billion out to individuals to spend, in a best-case scenario, on new TVs and restaurant meals. That money could have bought a lot of concrete. While more funds are needed, how they’re spent is equally important. New information technology, fresh engineering and advanced materials can help us not just restore, but improve our infrastructure in the coming century. Planned and managed properly, next-gen projects can be smarter and more resilient than what came before. Engineers and construction workers know how to get the job done. But first, we must gather the national will.
United States Infrastructure Investigation - Rebuilding America - Minnesota Bridge Collapse - Popular Mechanics

Because of the state of the US infrastructure the US is losing it's competitiveness to attract and maintain businesses on the world stage.

Transportation Infrastructure Neglect Threatens U.S. Competitiveness and "Economic Foundations for American Prosperity"

Transportation Infrastructure Neglect Threatens U.S. Competitiveness and "Economic Foundations for American Prosperity" - Telstar Logistics

Maintenance and Infrastructure will alway's be a problem, people want to sweep under the rug. That is generally why so much is falling down around us.

 

[Oddball]

Oh, they've been doing something about it, alright.....Like diverting somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% of fuel taxes, collected under the pretext that they'd be used for roads and bridges (y'know...that "infrastructure" thing), into money wasting urban mass transit scams.

And Bubba Clintoon's 3¢ increase in the gasoline tax?...Straight into the general fund, to be spent on whatever.

Of course, YMMV as to what constitutes "doing something about it".

Hmm, read this article and tell me what you think.

Survey: transit riders save thousands per year

Mass transit saves money

A study recently released by the American Public Transportation Association shows that commuters who use public transportation in 20 of the nation’s largest cities save, on average, about $9,500 per year. The study’s authors stated that to arrive at the amount of money saved by transit riders they looked at “the purchase of a monthly public transit pass and factor[ed] in local gas prices for December 7, 2010.” They also added in the national average for a monthly unreserved parking space in a downtown business district, which is about $160 per month or around $1,900 per year.

Despite reassurances from incoming House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman John Mica (R-FL) that access to rail will be expanded there are some concerns that federal spending for transportation will either be severely cut or redirected to other areas. This means that it is possible that fewer Americans instead of more will benefit from the savings comprehensive mass transit brings to a city.

Survey: transit riders save thousands per year - Houston Tomorrow

Oddball, do you live in a larger metropolitan area?

<snip>

Irrelevant to the fact that fuel tax revenues for all roads are being diverted for mass transit scams that are only used by a relative few...Using that model, you could argue that food stamps are the same kind of "money saver".


BTW, if they save so much money, why is it that mass transit boodoggles need to be subsidized?

 

[Intense]

Oh, they've been doing something about it, alright.....Like diverting somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% of fuel taxes, collected under the pretext that they'd be used for roads and bridges (y'know...that "infrastructure" thing), into money wasting urban mass transit scams.

And Bubba Clintoon's 3¢ increase in the gasoline tax?...Straight into the general fund, to be spent on whatever.

Of course, YMMV as to what constitutes "doing something about it".

Hmm, read this article and tell me what you think.

Survey: transit riders save thousands per year

Mass transit saves money

A study recently released by the American Public Transportation Association shows that commuters who use public transportation in 20 of the nation’s largest cities save, on average, about $9,500 per year. The study’s authors stated that to arrive at the amount of money saved by transit riders they looked at “the purchase of a monthly public transit pass and factor[ed] in local gas prices for December 7, 2010.” They also added in the national average for a monthly unreserved parking space in a downtown business district, which is about $160 per month or around $1,900 per year.

Despite reassurances from incoming House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman John Mica (R-FL) that access to rail will be expanded there are some concerns that federal spending for transportation will either be severely cut or redirected to other areas. This means that it is possible that fewer Americans instead of more will benefit from the savings comprehensive mass transit brings to a city.

Survey: transit riders save thousands per year - Houston Tomorrow

Oddball, do you live in a larger metropolitan area?

<snip>

Irrelevant to the fact that fuel tax revenues for all roads are being diverted for mass transit scams that are only used by a relative few...Using that model, you could argue that food stamps are the same kind of "money saver".


BTW, if they save so much money, why is it that mass transit boodoggles need to be subsidized?

You know the Inmates are running the Asylum when Sales and Mismanagement take priority over Quality Control and Maintenance.

 

[kiwiman127]

Oh, they've been doing something about it, alright.....Like diverting somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% of fuel taxes, collected under the pretext that they'd be used for roads and bridges (y'know...that "infrastructure" thing), into money wasting urban mass transit scams.

And Bubba Clintoon's 3¢ increase in the gasoline tax?...Straight into the general fund, to be spent on whatever.

Of course, YMMV as to what constitutes "doing something about it".

Hmm, read this article and tell me what you think.

Survey: transit riders save thousands per year

Mass transit saves money

A study recently released by the American Public Transportation Association shows that commuters who use public transportation in 20 of the nation’s largest cities save, on average, about $9,500 per year. The study’s authors stated that to arrive at the amount of money saved by transit riders they looked at “the purchase of a monthly public transit pass and factor[ed] in local gas prices for December 7, 2010.” They also added in the national average for a monthly unreserved parking space in a downtown business district, which is about $160 per month or around $1,900 per year.

Despite reassurances from incoming House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman John Mica (R-FL) that access to rail will be expanded there are some concerns that federal spending for transportation will either be severely cut or redirected to other areas. This means that it is possible that fewer Americans instead of more will benefit from the savings comprehensive mass transit brings to a city.

Survey: transit riders save thousands per year - Houston Tomorrow

Oddball, do you live in a larger metropolitan area?

<snip>

Irrelevant to the fact that fuel tax revenues for all roads are being diverted for mass transit scams that are only used by a relative few...Using that model, you could argue that food stamps are the same kind of "money saver".


BTW, if they save so much money, why is it that mass transit boodoggles need to be subsidized?

Oddball, I think my question of whether or not you live in an urban area is relevant. Now if you live in an area that doesn't require a mass transit system, then you would have a higher degree of reservation about mass transit subsidies. This I would understand.
I have a couple of friends of mine who live in the the sticks and they complain about subsidizing mass transit in the twin cites. But it's a fact that people who live in the urban areas are paying for the road maintenance in the sparsely populated areas. It costs about the same to plow snow of a road per mile in the sticks as it does in the city. But in the city the plowed roads enables many more people access to the roads per mile versus the usage of the roads in the rural areas.
On another note, there's a Catch-22 regarding mass transit. Many, if not most of the users of mass transit are the poor/low paid working Americans. Mass transit is the only way many can get to work. If mass transit charged riders what the bottom-line cost were to transport it's users, many of the low income users couldn't afford to use mass transit as a way to get to work.
So it seems this is an either-or situation. Either the subsidies are paid via taxes for mass transit or more welfare is paid because the poor working class can't afford to get to work.
The concept of mass transit is also to relieve the roads of congestion thus saving fuel, helping the environment and wear and tear on automobiles. Also mass transit saves wear-and-tear on the roads within metropolitan areas, thus saving tax dollars.
Finally, I'll never disagree with anyone that bureaucracy is a pain in the ass and a pain in the wallet.

 

[logical4u]

I could have sworn that the Stimulus Bill was to "INVEST" in the infrastructure.

I do like the word "invest", it's the new buzz word from the democrats. I read in the paper where politicians from Wa. used that word after the pep rally from the president. Now I know what that closed door meeting with the democrats was about...or part of the meeting.

40% of it was tax cuts..and that's after it was cut in half by Republicans.

What tax cuts? There was a continuation of tax policy (the taxes stayed where the were). There was a tax deferment. There was not a tax "cut".

Sallow, swallow, that koolaid.

 

[logical4u]

Well, I see this has degenerated into a partisan political thread and it shouldn't.
Our infrastructure sucks, it's that plain and simple. The Popular Mechanics article was written shortly after the 35W bridge collapse in 2007.
The point of the matter is, fixing our infrastructure isn't a flashy and it's costly. Fixing in the future will cost more as the problem gets worse. Not only will the actual fixing cost more there's also the loss of opportunity for the US to stay competitive.
Lowering the tax rate for corporations isn't going to keep businesses in the US or attract new businesses if our infrastructure isn't sound, it's that plain and simple. It's just common sense. Other countries, our competitors are investing in their infrastructures at a much higher rate than the US. If the safety of yourself, family, friends and your fellow Americans doesn't stir you, how about the support of our capitalistic system and our competitive place in the world?

Also, in the end it's also not just about highways and bridges, it's about our power grid, water, hazardous waste, railway system, levees, etc.

Home | Report Card for America's Infrastructure

It's just like the corporations that invest in themselves prove to be more successful than those who don't.

I don't think there is anyone here that is opposed to "investing" in infrastructure. The problem is, many of us have paid taxes for decades, that were "dedicated" to roads and other infrastructure (can you say phone taxes to string wire in the 1940s, that we still pay, gas taxes "for the roads"). We have a problem with politicians (any brand), telling us they need "more". Where did you spend the "investment money" for the last 60 + years? We don't believe the "politicians" when they tell us "it will be used for infrastructure". We, after decades, have become, cynical.

 

[logical4u]

Where did the Trillion dollar stimulus money go?

See the link in #22.

As I don't consider myself a partisan hack, the posters and Hoover Institute are right, the funds were mishandled from the top all the way to the states to individuals.
That does not mean we can ignore the problem and it'll go away.
There have been infrastructure failures that have cost individuals their lives, from the bridge failure in Minneapolis to the water contamination in Milwaukee to the failed levees in New Orleans. If that isn't one good reason, there's the fact that because of the US's aging infrastructure, the US is losing out to competing nations for economic growth via new business and old businesses staying in the US.

Why don't we, as taxpayers, demand the govenment spend the tax money collected to support those "investments" is "actually" used for the purpose intended?

 

[Oddball]

Hmm, read this article and tell me what you think.

Survey: transit riders save thousands per year

Mass transit saves money

A study recently released by the American Public Transportation Association shows that commuters who use public transportation in 20 of the nation’s largest cities save, on average, about $9,500 per year. The study’s authors stated that to arrive at the amount of money saved by transit riders they looked at “the purchase of a monthly public transit pass and factor[ed] in local gas prices for December 7, 2010.” They also added in the national average for a monthly unreserved parking space in a downtown business district, which is about $160 per month or around $1,900 per year.

Despite reassurances from incoming House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman John Mica (R-FL) that access to rail will be expanded there are some concerns that federal spending for transportation will either be severely cut or redirected to other areas. This means that it is possible that fewer Americans instead of more will benefit from the savings comprehensive mass transit brings to a city.

Survey: transit riders save thousands per year - Houston Tomorrow

Oddball, do you live in a larger metropolitan area?

<snip>

Irrelevant to the fact that fuel tax revenues for all roads are being diverted for mass transit scams that are only used by a relative few...Using that model, you could argue that food stamps are the same kind of "money saver".


BTW, if they save so much money, why is it that mass transit boodoggles need to be subsidized?

Oddball, I think my question of whether or not you live in an urban area is relevant. Now if you live in an area that doesn't require a mass transit system, then you would have a higher degree of reservation about mass transit subsidies. This I would understand.
I have a couple of friends of mine who live in the the sticks and they complain about subsidizing mass transit in the twin cites. But it's a fact that people who live in the urban areas are paying for the road maintenance in the sparsely populated areas. It costs about the same to plow snow of a road per mile in the sticks as it does in the city. But in the city the plowed roads enables many more people access to the roads per mile versus the usage of the roads in the rural areas.
On another note, there's a Catch-22 regarding mass transit. Many, if not most of the users of mass transit are the poor/low paid working Americans. Mass transit is the only way many can get to work. If mass transit charged riders what the bottom-line cost were to transport it's users, many of the low income users couldn't afford to use mass transit as a way to get to work.
So it seems this is an either-or situation. Either the subsidies are paid via taxes for mass transit or more welfare is paid because the poor working class can't afford to get to work.
The concept of mass transit is also to relieve the roads of congestion thus saving fuel, helping the environment and wear and tear on automobiles. Also mass transit saves wear-and-tear on the roads within metropolitan areas, thus saving tax dollars.
Finally, I'll never disagree with anyone that bureaucracy is a pain in the ass and a pain in the wallet.

It's entirely irrelevant where I live...As is your rationalization for the hijacking of funds diverted to money burning urban mass transit money pits, collected under the guise that it's to be spent on roads and bridges...Besides that, mass transit is a local issue not a federal one.

Well, there is one area of relevance: The same people who've thrown all those funds into mass transit money pits are now whinin'-n-cryin' about "our crumbling infrastructure".

 

[kiwiman127]

Irrelevant to the fact that fuel tax revenues for all roads are being diverted for mass transit scams that are only used by a relative few...Using that model, you could argue that food stamps are the same kind of "money saver".


BTW, if they save so much money, why is it that mass transit boodoggles need to be subsidized?

Oddball, I think my question of whether or not you live in an urban area is relevant. Now if you live in an area that doesn't require a mass transit system, then you would have a higher degree of reservation about mass transit subsidies. This I would understand.
I have a couple of friends of mine who live in the the sticks and they complain about subsidizing mass transit in the twin cites. But it's a fact that people who live in the urban areas are paying for the road maintenance in the sparsely populated areas. It costs about the same to plow snow of a road per mile in the sticks as it does in the city. But in the city the plowed roads enables many more people access to the roads per mile versus the usage of the roads in the rural areas.
On another note, there's a Catch-22 regarding mass transit. Many, if not most of the users of mass transit are the poor/low paid working Americans. Mass transit is the only way many can get to work. If mass transit charged riders what the bottom-line cost were to transport it's users, many of the low income users couldn't afford to use mass transit as a way to get to work.
So it seems this is an either-or situation. Either the subsidies are paid via taxes for mass transit or more welfare is paid because the poor working class can't afford to get to work.
The concept of mass transit is also to relieve the roads of congestion thus saving fuel, helping the environment and wear and tear on automobiles. Also mass transit saves wear-and-tear on the roads within metropolitan areas, thus saving tax dollars.
Finally, I'll never disagree with anyone that bureaucracy is a pain in the ass and a pain in the wallet.

It's entirely irrelevant where I live...As is your rationalization for the hijacking of funds diverted to money burning urban mass transit money pits, collected under the guise that it's to be spent on roads and bridges...Besides that, mass transit is a local issue not a federal one.

Well, there is one area of relevance: The same people who've thrown all those funds into mass transit money pits are now whinin'-n-cryin' about "our crumbling infrastructure".

Let me put it this way, if you lived in a metropolitan area my guess is that you'd appreciate mass transit more.
I never used mass transit until the 35W bridge went down.
The drive time for me to get to and from work work increased by 90 minutes to two hours.
So I decided to use the mass transit system which saved me at least an hour while the construction of the new bridge was going on.
Now, instead of driving to a Twins, Vikings or Timberwolves game, I take the light rail system. That saves me time and money which allows me to more contribute money to the restaurants/bars around where the games are played and thusly I'm contributing more to our capitalistic system!
Also, it's not just "The same people who've thrown all those funds into mass transit money pits are now whinin'-n-cryin' about "our crumbling infrastructure". As noted by the many links I provided as evidence that our infrastructure is crumbling and needs repair, infrastructure and safety experts are also "whinin'-n-cryin'".
Also infrastructure does not just apply to roads and ground transportation, it applies to power grids, drinking water, hazardous waste, the internet, airports, levees; etc.
In the end, lets face it. You and I will never agree on this. I'm very comfortable with my beliefs on this as I studied non-partisan resources to form my opinion. I was on this before Obama was ever nominated to run for prez, so naturally I'm agreeing with him on this, but not as a partisan hack.
You have your reasons to disagree and that's your right.