<!--quoteo(post=351465:date=Feb 24 2009, 11&#58;14 AM:name=Gregswife)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gregswife &#064; Feb 24 2009, 11&#58;14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&amp;pid=351465">&lt;strong&gt;QUOTE BELOW&lt;/strong&gt;</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Our state is getting 500 million dollars, which they are going to use to fix roads.  May be needed, but I do not really see how that is going to help John Q. Citizen.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><br /><br /><br />Hi Cheryl.  To the extent that states can put that money to use replacing worn out infrastructure, this will help the general public with safer bi-ways, while providing construction jobs.  In Colorado alone, we have 126 publicly owned bridges classifed as Structurally Deficient. We have another ~300 bridges classifed as Functionally Obsolete.  Across the US, the number of Structurally Deficient bridges is over 6000.  They need replacing, but what I&#39;m afraid is that alot of the infrastructure money will be diverted to projects that are quicker and easier to award (i.e., repaving).  States must obligate 50% of their funds within 120 days, giving preference to &quot;shovel ready&quot; projects. This will make it difficult to plan a bridge replacement unless it was already in the works.  Repaving contracts can be let out quicker, so we can all expect to see lots of &quot;cone zones&quot; this summer.  Unfortunately, those projects won&#39;t create as many jobs as new construction or re-construction.  The other 50% must be obligated within one year, which does allow time for the larger projects.<br /><br />I haven&#39;t read the final version, but an earlier draft of HR1 also included a lot of money that may promote the general welfare, but won&#39;t create jobs nor stimulate the economy.  So there are pluses and minuses to HR1; but it&#39;s kind of like washing down a good piece of pizza with stale beer.