Skip to Content
Streetsblog California home
Streetsblog California home
Log In
Streetsblog USA

The Highs and Lows of Hillary’s Bland Infrastructure Plan

We're getting some insight into what White House transportation policy would look like in a Hillary Clinton administration, following the Democratic frontrunner's release of a 5-year, $275 billion infrastructure plan yesterday. It's not exactly a visionary plan, but despite its blandness it's still likely to be DOA if Republicans retain control of Congress as expected.

Photo: Wikipedia
Photo: Wikipedia
false

Clinton's "briefing" calls for $275 billion in infrastructure spending over five years, on top of the $250 billion transportation bill being finalized right now in Washington. Echoing the Obama administration she says the proposal will be paid for by the vague notion of "business tax reform" -- not a gas tax increase or a fee on driving mileage.

The Clinton spending package is something of a grab bag of ideas for roads, transit, aviation, water, and internet infrastructure.

On the one hand, Clinton gestures toward reforming the way federal infrastructure dollars are spent, emphasizing "merit-based" project selection. This suggests the typical state DOT highway boondoggle would face greater scrutiny. She also recognizes the need to get more bang for the infrastructure buck, signals support for walking and biking infrastructure, and promises to target spending to address environmental degradation and social inequality. She devotes a paragraph to the need for more investment in transit, which she says is particularly important for low-income communities and communities of color.

Those are the good parts, sounding policy themes carried over from the Obama administration, whose TIGER program remains a rare example of what "merit-based" federal funding would look like.

On the other hand, the Clinton campaign repeats the Texas Transportation Institute's talking point about how Americans waste 42 hours in traffic annually -- a dubious claim used to beat the drum for more highway expansions. Clinton's proposal does not contain a reference to "fix it first" policy -- the idea that keeping existing roads in good shape should take precedence over building new ones. In fact, she wants to "fix and expand” roads and bridges, which sounds like business as usual -- squandering billions on highway projects the nation doesn't need.

There may be something for everyone in this plan, but there's no consistent vision for a safe, equitable, sustainable transportation system.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog California

Friday’s Headlines

With all the press about gas prices and the annual inflation tax increase, I'm actually stunned to hear prices are down in this fiscal year.

July 18, 2025

L.A. City Approves Measure HLA Ordinance

Both City Council and Mayor approved the city HLA ordinance, which goes into effect on August 18.

July 17, 2025

Op-ed: It’s Time to Fix Polk Street

Polk Street’s Bike Lane at 10: iteration promised, disappointment delivered.

July 17, 2025

Trump and Duffy Continue Assault on California and the Environment, Officially Cancel Federal Funding for High-Speed Rail

“Canceling these grants without cause isn’t just wrong — it’s illegal,” said CAHSRA CEO Ian Choudri.

July 17, 2025

Talking Headways Podcast: Reclaiming the Road

Ohio elected official and geographer David Prytherch on his new book, Reclaiming the Road: Mobility Justice Beyond Complete Streets.

July 17, 2025

Thursday’s Headlines

It's hardly news that California has to go it alone on modernizing our transportation system.

July 17, 2025
See all posts