If they keep on with the tact that 10-20% of the budget is spent on non-transport projects. (how does one lump museums, lighthouses and bike paths in the same concept?) Are we suppose to follow the bouncing ball logic that things would be much better if we spent 100% on roads? My thought was our western mindset of not inspecting anything beyond a cursory visual, until bloody great hunks of pavement/concrete start falling off is too blame. Not spending money on maintaining existing infrastructure is what led to this IMHO. In a similar vein, the aging water systems in our cities. If the pipe ain't gushing water through the middle of the intersection it MUST be fine.