Silver lining: A bipartisan infrastructure bill would most likely consist of a lot of wasteful and unsustainable spending on projects that make life worse for most Americans, with funds allocated almost solely in the basis of political influence. This is without a doubt one of the issues where gridlock is preferable to federal action.
Aka all on roads and nothing on public transit. In the Milwaukee burbs public transit is considered a liberal commy plot/boondoggle. People would rather sit in cars and scream than have a train.
Largely, yes, but even within highway spending, federal money tends to be poorly managed: Building new roads (that states and localities will never have enough money to maintain) instead of repairing old ones, for instance, or supporting divided highways (euphemistically called "interstates" even though most new construction is to support increased commuter traffic) instead of "Complete Streets"-style multi-modal projects.
The same applies to water and sewer. You're more likely to see federal funds going toward projects that support new development instead of replacing lead water pipes or updating hazardous combined sewer systems in central cities and older villages.
Wisconsin repealed it's "complete streets" because biking is a commie plot as well when in reality all major streets should have protected bike lanes.
Milwaukee could also use that money for lead pipe removal in the city, and yet again the burbs are "let new Detroit (when the city is booming and growing again) die and who cares".
