Side-by-side analysis of what each approach would mean for your roads, water, broadband, transit, and the grid that powers it all.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page compares infrastructure approaches across parties — but there's much more to explore.
America's infrastructure is failing. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives it a C- grade. Over 46,000 bridges are structurally deficient. An estimated 9.2 million homes receive water through lead pipes. Forty-two million Americans lack broadband access. The electrical grid was built for the 1960s and routinely fails under extreme weather. Public transit is underfunded by $176 billion. Airports, ports, and water systems are aging past their design lifetimes. The ASCE estimates the US needs $3.8 trillion in investment by 2029 just to maintain existing systems — and trillions more to build the 21st-century infrastructure the economy requires.
Both parties claim to support infrastructure investment, but they disagree on how much, what to prioritize, and how to pay for it. Democrats passed the $1.2 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021 — historic in scale but well short of what experts say is needed. They prioritize clean energy, broadband, transit, and lead pipe replacement alongside traditional roads and bridges. Republicans generally favor smaller federal programs focused on roads and bridges, support public-private partnerships, and oppose tax increases to fund infrastructure. The Common Good Party proposes the most ambitious infrastructure plan: fully funding the ASCE-recommended investment level, treating broadband as a public utility, replacing all lead pipes within 10 years, modernizing the grid, and building a national high-speed rail network — funded through progressive taxation and green bonds.
This page breaks down each approach honestly — what it gets right, what it misses, and what it would actually mean for the roads you drive, the water you drink, and the internet your family depends on. No spin, no talking points, just the policy.
How the three approaches stack up on the infrastructure issues that affect your daily life.
| Issue | Democrats | Republicans | Common Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spending level | $1.2T over 5 years (IIJA) | Smaller federal role, PPPs | Full ASCE-recommended level ($3.8T+) |
| Broadband | $65B for expansion | Private sector-led, deregulate | Universal access, treat as public utility |
| Lead pipes | $15B (partial replacement) | State/local responsibility | Full replacement in 10 years |
| Bridges / roads | $110B in IIJA | Priority, highway focus | Fix all deficient bridges, complete streets |
| Public transit | $39B in IIJA, Amtrak expansion | Limited federal role | National transit authority, high-speed rail |
| Clean energy grid | IRA incentives, grid modernization | All-of-the-above energy, fossil focus | Full grid modernization, 100% clean by 2040 |
| Water systems | $55B in IIJA | State/local, limited federal role | Full modernization, universal clean water guarantee |
| Airports / ports | $25B in IIJA | Public-private partnerships | Modernize to global standards, electrify ports |
| Rural infrastructure | Broadband focus, some rural roads | Roads and bridges priority | Comprehensive rural plan: broadband, water, roads, transit |
| How paid for | Mix of taxes, fees, borrowing | User fees, PPPs, oppose tax increases | Progressive taxation, green bonds, job creation ROI |
Sources: American Society of Civil Engineers, EPA, FCC, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, party platform documents. See the compact comparison view for a quick side-by-side summary.
Democrats passed the most significant infrastructure legislation in a generation — the $1.2 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (IIJA) in 2021. The law included $550 billion in new federal spending: $110 billion for roads and bridges, $65 billion for broadband, $55 billion for clean drinking water, $66 billion for passenger rail, $39 billion for public transit, and $7.5 billion for EV charging stations. Combined with the Inflation Reduction Act's clean energy investments, Democrats have directed roughly $2 trillion toward infrastructure and clean energy over the past five years. They've also supported Buy American requirements, prevailing wage standards, and project labor agreements for federally funded construction.
The IIJA was a genuinely historic achievement — the largest federal infrastructure investment in decades. Democrats correctly broadened the definition of infrastructure beyond roads and bridges to include broadband, clean water, clean energy, and public transit. The $15 billion for lead pipe replacement, while insufficient for the full job, established an important federal commitment to solving a crisis that disproportionately affects low-income communities and communities of color. Broadband investment addresses a critical equity gap. Buy American provisions ensure that infrastructure spending creates domestic jobs.
The IIJA, while historic, falls dramatically short of what engineers say is needed. The ASCE's $3.8 trillion estimate makes the IIJA's $550 billion in new spending look like a down payment. Lead pipe funding covers roughly one-quarter to one-third of the total replacement cost. Broadband funding, while significant, does not address the fundamental problem that most Americans have at most one or two broadband providers — monopoly pricing remains. Public transit funding barely covers the maintenance backlog, let alone expansion. Democrats' initial proposals were much larger ($3.5 trillion in the Build Back Better framework), but were scaled back to win bipartisan support. The result is a law that represents real progress but doesn't actually solve the infrastructure crisis.
For more on infrastructure funding gaps, see the full infrastructure explainer.
Republicans generally support infrastructure investment but prefer a smaller federal footprint, focusing on traditional infrastructure — roads, bridges, highways, and ports — rather than what they call "social infrastructure." Key Republican proposals include streamlining permitting and environmental review processes to accelerate project delivery, expanding public-private partnerships (PPPs) to leverage private capital, funding infrastructure through user fees (gas taxes, tolls) rather than general tax increases, and reducing federal regulations that they argue inflate construction costs. Some Republicans voted for the IIJA, while others opposed it as too expensive and too focused on clean energy priorities.
Republicans correctly identify that permitting reform is critical. Major infrastructure projects in the US take 7-10 years to complete environmental reviews and obtain permits — compared to 2-3 years in most European countries. This delay increases costs by billions and means critical projects take decades from conception to completion. Public-private partnerships, when properly structured, can leverage private capital and expertise. The focus on user fees like gas taxes has historically been an effective and politically sustainable way to fund highway infrastructure. And reducing unnecessary regulatory burden on construction can lower costs and speed delivery.
The Republican approach dramatically underestimates the scale of investment needed. The ASCE's $3.8 trillion estimate isn't a partisan number — it's an engineering assessment. You cannot close a $3.8 trillion gap with PPPs and user fees. Public-private partnerships, while useful for some projects, often result in higher long-term costs because private investors require returns, and have been associated with toll increases, reduced maintenance, and bankruptcy in several high-profile cases. The gas tax, which hasn't been raised since 1993, generates declining revenue as vehicles become more fuel-efficient and electric vehicles pay nothing.
Limiting infrastructure investment to roads and bridges ignores that broadband, clean water, and public transit are just as essential to economic competitiveness. America's competitors — China, the EU, Japan — are investing trillions in high-speed rail, broadband, and clean energy infrastructure. Treating these as "social spending" rather than economic investment puts America further behind. And while permitting reform is genuinely needed, using it as a reason to gut environmental protections throws the baby out with the bathwater.
For a deeper analysis of investment needs, see our infrastructure explainer.
The Common Good Party proposes the most comprehensive infrastructure plan of any party — fully funding the ASCE- recommended investment level and going further on 21st-century infrastructure. For broadband: treat it as a public utility, ensure universal access, allow municipal broadband, and regulate monopoly pricing. For water: replace every lead service line in America within 10 years and modernize aging water treatment systems. For transit: create a national transit development authority, invest in high-speed rail corridors connecting major metro areas, and rebalance federal transportation spending from 80/20 highways-to-transit toward 50/50. For the grid: full modernization including national transmission buildout, smart grid technology, utility-scale energy storage, and weatherization. For roads and bridges: repair all structurally deficient bridges and implement complete streets design that serves pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users alongside cars.
Unlike the Democratic approach, the CGP plan doesn't accept a compromise that falls short of what engineers say is needed. The IIJA was a good start — the CGP plan finishes the job. Unlike the Republican approach, it doesn't pretend that PPPs and user fees can close a multi-trillion-dollar gap, and it treats broadband, transit, and clean water as essential infrastructure, not optional extras. The CGP plan also addresses permitting reform — agreeing with Republicans that project timelines must be shortened — while maintaining environmental protections by streamlining review processes rather than gutting standards. The plan is funded through progressive taxation, green bonds, and the economic return on investment: infrastructure spending creates an estimated $1.80 in economic activity for every $1 invested and generates millions of good-paying construction and manufacturing jobs.
Countries that invest heavily in infrastructure outperform those that don't. China has built 28,000 miles of high-speed rail in 15 years. Japan's bullet train system has carried over 10 billion passengers without a single fatality. Germany's autobahn system is maintained to standards that make American highways look neglected. South Korea has universal broadband at speeds that average 5-10 times faster than the US at a fraction of the cost. The EU is investing $800 billion in infrastructure through its NextGenerationEU program. These investments create jobs, boost productivity, attract business investment, and improve quality of life. America did this once — the interstate highway system, the TVA, the Hoover Dam. We can do it again.
Infrastructure investment also has the highest bipartisan support of almost any policy area. Polls consistently show 70-80% of Americans support major infrastructure investment. The obstacle is not public will — it's political will to fund it at the scale the problem requires.
Infrastructure isn't about concrete and cables — it's about whether you can get to work, drink your water safely, and participate in the modern economy. Here's what the Common Good plan would look like for real people.
Infrastructure connects to everything — housing, climate, jobs, health. Explore how our full platform addresses these interconnections.
Explore the Full PlatformCommon questions about how the three approaches compare on infrastructure.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full infrastructure explainer or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Dive deeper into infrastructure policy with these pages.
America's infrastructure crisis is a choice, not an inevitability. Read the full plan and see which approach actually builds the future.
Paid for by The Common Good Party (thecommongoodparty.com) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.