Should the government prioritize the maintenance and repair of existing roads and bridges over building new infrastructure?

No

Yes, except in rural areas that lack existing infrastructure

Yes, until the structure is deemed broken beyond repair after a thorough inspection by state officials.

Yes, unless existing roads and infrastructure are too old and new infrastructure is deemed more suitable to support growth.

Yes but only until the structure is deemed broken beyond repair by State authorities and has to be replaced by something new.

New infrastructure that prioritizes alternative forms of transportation to cars should be considered rather than repair. New car centric infrastructure should be limited.

i think the priority for maintenance and repair of existing roads and bridges should be as equal as building new infrastructure, as long as the building is actually needed.

Yes, if the current infrastructure would meet our current needs when fixed. If the infrastructure really needs to be replaced, then replace it.

The existing road and Bridge networks in the United States have been in a state of disrepair in neglect for a long time. But it is not just their state of disrepair neglect that contributes to the problem. It is also the way they are designed, the United States has had a very low quality rating on its own infrastructure. Its roads and bridges are made in such a way that allows for repairs to be quick, but also makes it so that has to happen more often. We must focus on building new infrastructure, starting with our roads and bridges by building more improved models that will last for centuries, if properly maintained under the pressure of modern machinery. And building new infrastructure is a very important thing for producing employment in the United States and improving our economy.

Do both. The federal government literally prints its own money

Repair existing infrastructure and build new public transportation systems.

Government should prioritize the maintenance of existing roads and the construction of new roads.

No, Prioritize both maintaining current infrastructure as well as constructing new infrastructure.

No, because building new infrastructure should be just as important as maintenance and repair. It just depends weather or not existing infostructure can updated to modern needs and regulations, if it isn't then new infostructure should be built to replace it.

Yes, but I would rather privatize all infrastructure

Yes, but they should also help build new ones too.

To an extent, if buildings need repairs and maintenance then they should be repaired but new infrastructure is necessary for development

Yes, but only until the infrastructure is deemed broken beyond repair after a thorough inspection by state officials.

Yes, prioritize the improvement of existing infrastructure before moving into making new infrastructure

No, the government should prioritize new infrastructure and roads to replace broken down or inefficient infrastructure and roads.

I would say a bit of both as we have public transit and infastructure issues all across the country and doing both will achieve maximum results.

Road ways are complicated, they should focus souls on maintenance on rarely used roads and infrastructure, and depending on the area the road is in would decide how they should treat roadways, e.g. highways with high throughput should have less lanes giving more space for business, but not so little lanes to prevent travel, throughput on highways hardly has to do with the number of lanes, and more so on number of cars, more cars more traffic.

If the road is almost unable to drive on then it should be prioritized but if its just a little bit bumpy then no.

Yes, until the structure is declared broken beyond repair after a thorough investigation by state officials.

For example: The MTA have to renovate the station like The EU are doing and deploy security guards in the station and install Automatic Screen Doors to ensure safety and they should build a high speed rail network across the usa.

No. Some infrastructure is not worth preserving. Allow states and city boards to determine what is appropriate in most cases.

Renovating old roads with higher quality longer lasting material and high real professionals to redesigns roads that are poorly designed.

The state government should maintain roads and the federal government should build new infrastructure.

No, we can walk and chew bubblegum, we don't need to prioritize on the older infrastructure against new, we can do both.

yes but they have to make sure to take out/destroy the current roads and then build newer, stronger, and safer roads that wont cause any harm to the planet the wild life and etc.

It depends on the projects and maintenance required. The more something must be maintained, the higher priority

Yes, however if discussed or voted on new infrastructure can still be built over existing roads and bridges

The government should not own property or roads and all of it should be privatized and therefore the owners of the now private roads should determine how best to care for roads

Yes, once our current infrastructure meets current standards, then we can invest in new infrastructure

Depending on where the bridges or roads are located. Roads in the Midwest can oftentimes be rocky and unmaintained vs a road in California being maintained.

I feel like its a 50/50 on how you see it and if its really important bridge or road and where you put it.

Roads have always been bad. I dont think those will ever get better let alone building infrastructures. Do both

Yes, only if estimates show that new developments would be more effective over maintenance and repair

No, but make roads a part of the infrastructure budget, so they can get repaired and updated regularly as well.

Yes, we do not need more infrastructure pollution. We are using up way too much land for buildings that have 'lease now' signs on them months after a failing business leaves it vacant.

We need to fix our current roads, but we need way more public transit, like trains connecting large cities.

I'd say somewhat yes but building new roads and infrastructures could also be very helpful in the future depending on what it is.

Yes but only until it starts to become unsafe for them to repair it farther or if creating a new structure would cost less

Yes, but prioritize alternative modes of transportation over car-centric infrastructure (I.e. high speed rail, light rail, greenways, bike lanes, etc.)

It depends on what locale is being maintained/repaired. If well populated city yes, if small town with declining population less need to make repairs

Both should be maintained as need.Only when the road is too unsafe or out of date should it not be rebuilt upon.

I think instead of maintenance and repair it should be maintenance and improvement of existing roads and bridges to build new infrastructure

I think the government should put more funds into fixing existing roads but still keep building new infrastructure to keep up with population growth.

If the existing infrastructure is inefficient/ineffective, it should be improved. Otherwise, leave it alone, and allocate the funds elsewhere.

Nuance, come on. Each city, each situation requires nuance and details to evaluate to prioritize needs.

The government should repair existing roads and bridges to make them easier and safer to drive on, but the government should also build more buildings if needed.

Government should maintain and repair roads and bridges, that can be greatly improved with that limited work. But should replace with new infrastructure when deemed necessary.

I say it doesn’t matter because yes fixing the road may fix a lot of problems but at the same time building new infrastructure can cause people to have more housing and the ability to have shelter

It should be both, really the entirety of the US Infrastructure not only needs to be cared for, but it also needs to be more focused on public transport.

I think that we should build new bridges and roads as population in one place grows, and fixing roads are something we should always do, but there is more than this to be concerned about.

Should be doing both. Make existing roads and bridges safe and walkable while also working on public transportation infrastructure.

I think that depending on the conditions of the existing roads and bridges should determine they should be included in building a new infrastructure or if they should continue to be utilized.

Focus on public transit, trains, buses, etc., then worry about maintenance and repair, then give least priority to new car infrastructure.

There should be prioritize of existing infrastructure if the building can be repaired rather than working on something new and taking more time away from the already existing infrastructure

No, the government should invest in both existing infrastructure maintenance and new infrastructure projects.

Yes, but not if the new infrastructure can replace and upgrade maintenance and repair of existing roads at a lower overall cost.

Yes, if the cost of a new road is less than repairs and it doesn't take away from land owners in the area.

i think it should be 50/50, new infrastructure is a good thing, however, maintaining current infrastructure is also important.

We should actually change our road systems to fit a non-car society. prioritizing public transportation via trains, buses, and bikes. The existing roads should be either altered, ecologically or for new transportation, or gotten rid of and changed for foot, bike, or animal travel.

They should keep repairing and maintaining existing roads and bridges, until new infrastructure is required due to extensive damage or it being simply the better or cheaper option.

No, only when the price of repair over time proves to be more than replacing existing infrastructure.

The situation depends, if it would be more effective and make more sense to build new roads, we should build them. However, if it would make more sense to modify/strengthen the current roads/infrastructure then that is what we should do.

It depends on the condition of that infrastructure. There are times when improving it may be adequate and other times it may need to be replaced.

Both options should have equal priority. We should be optimizing what exists vs just maintaining it though.

Yes, but if a better route is to be provided by building new vs. maintaining old then it absolutely should prioritize new infrastructure.

these are not mutually exclusive agendas. we should fund and support a federal bureaucracy that can walk and chew gum at a minimum. and besides, particular circumstances will dictate whether repair or replace makes the most sense.

No, the government should maintain existing roads and bridges, but create a more robust public transportation system as a long-term solution.

It depends on what's wrong with the existing road, why the new infrastructure is needed, and the costs of each.

Yes because there are very many roads that need to be fixed but they aren't and that money is being taken out of our paychecks for taxes.

No, but areas affected by damaged transportation lines should be either given new form of transportation or maintenance done so existing transportation.

No, the government should not be involved in the construction of roads and bridges other than the safety and stability of either.

If we can afford it, I believe they should maintain and repair existing infrastructure but also build more infrastructure.

We should maintain current critical infrastructure and invest in new infrastructure that incentivizes rail and public transit

No, the government should do things equally on this matter. It should have a budget designed for every program.

Yes, but only if the alternative is not part of the development of a smart public transportation grid

No, it should be based on the needs of road users, prioritizing projects people need most regardless of whether it is new or old.

It depends on the city and situation. Basically, it's a case by case basis. I do think maintenance should be the main focus though, especially in urban areas.

A cost analysis should be performed for the maintenance of existing infrastructure however, if the analysis yields a larger value than rebuild, we should consider the option of building new infrastructure as a replacement.

There should be a repair of dangerous or poor infrastructure and then investment in more infrastructure.

divided their focus on roads, bridges and highways while focusing on developing infrastructure in areas needed

I think the government should definitely build new infrastructure but not forget to give enough funding to bridges and roads improvements

This should be a 50/50 balance on spending unless emergencies deem a greater funding need to repair existing roadways damaged through weather, emergencies and time.

Yes and create more jobs for highway depts and implement new timeframes for work to be done streamlined

Roads that are no longer repairable should be mended (renovated), but the government should focus more on creating long-lasting structures over creating a multitude of infrastructure that fails to last -- resulting in the need to build, more and new infrastructure. If existing roads can be repaired they should. However, if certain structures are no longer relevant and impede transportation they should be renovated and modernized in order to suit current needs.

Local governments such as counties and cities can upkeep infrastructure. If the local citizenry votes on a fund to do so. But local companies and corporations should.

No unless it is in serious need of repair, but all roads and bridges should be monitored yearly or every half year to make sure they are in serviceable condition

Yes, unless the infrastructure reaches an aging point that it is less effective than building new infrastructure. Funds should go more into improving the public transportation system.

We should instead invest in Roman Concrete which make roads last longer and have less of a need to repair roads.

I think that certain structures should be given maintenance but also building new infrastructure is just as important.

No, Extend Interstate 20 to Los Angeles. Build a new Interstate along the Atlantic Coast from Savannah, GA to Wilmington, DE

In order to embrace greener technologies, new infrastructure should be installed for the benefit of the planet. It depends on the state of the road/bridge, and which is healthiest and cost-efficient in the long-run.

I believe repairing old roads and bridges is important to provide citizens with the best and saftest driving conditions but we are also a growing expanding country that realize on new infastucture.

Yes, but they should revisit the idea of new infrastructure (that supports pedestrians and cyclists) later

I believe both are needed at the same time, depending on the state of disrepair existing infrastructure may have fallen under.