a significant part of the stimulus package recently passed and enacted by the government deals with infrastructure upgrades and improvements. many states and cities reportedly have hundreds of "shovel-ready" projects to make sure the use of the funds happens as quickly as possible. but before all funds are thrown to the shovels, some considerations need to be made.
while i definitely cannot speak from personal experience on any of the projects, my guess is that most of them were begun a year or more ago, in rosier times of the economy. consequently, they may be based on rates of growth that are no longer being realized by the areas to be affected by the construction. so, despite the mandate of the funds to use it asap and responsibly too, it might be in the best interest of the respective agencies to do some reviews of the impact. undoubtedly, more than a few "bridges to nowhere" will be the end result of the legislation.
areas that may especially need consideration are newer developments, especially ones with high rates of foreclosures. although the president is trying to stop the rush of foreclosures that is occurring, success has not yet been necessarily met. so in some cases, it might be in the best interest of cities to instead of continuing to pay for upkeep of deserted neighborhoods, they instead go a little further and buy all the homes and raze them. a large amount of abandoned homes usually creates exceptional places for crime, stretching police and fire departments thinner as well as maintenance departments. several cities in the rust belt have done this already.
in addition to the savings, in the city coffers, they also give cities a chance to become greener as a whole. urban sprawl can be reduced with instead concentration on more core city. less sprawl will also mean less use of cars to travel long distances to and from work and less concrete covering the landscape. this could help more local farmers with reasonably small amounts of land that is close to the point of use.