Communities across the country are gearing up to spend the infrastructure funding that President-elect Barack Obama has promised as part of his economic stimulus plan.

If anything close to the amounts being discussed nationally are actually distributed, the amount of money for our region would be enormous -- even $25 billion nationwide could mean $200 million for southwestern Pennsylvania, and $500 billion nationally could mean as much as $4 billion for projects here.

Although public officials in southwestern Pennsylvania were criticized for not producing a long list of projects as fast as other communities did, most people don't realize how hard it is to spend unexpected infrastructure money quickly, particularly when it's of the magnitude being discussed now. Months or years of preparation are typically needed to get a major infrastructure project to the point where construction can start -- it needs to be designed carefully (the 2007 bridge collapse in Minnesota shows what can happen if it's not), the land where it will be built needs to be acquired, and necessary permits have to be approved.

It would have been expensive for our counties and municipalities to undertake this kind of advance planning for a lot of projects, merely to have them sit on a shelf with only a hope of getting money to actually complete them.

It's not likely that sending longer lists to Washington will result in more money. The federal government is not going to have the time to review thousands of applications and try to make judgments about which are more deserving of support. Funding will probably be distributed based on a formula, using factors such as population and unemployment.

So our real challenge will be choosing the best projects for whatever amount of money comes our way and making sure they are implemented effectively. Here are some important issues to consider:

• Should we build new things or fix existing things? New projects sound more exciting, but the stimulus package doesn't include funding for long-term operating and maintenance costs. If we use the funding to build a new highway, who will pay to fix the potholes that develop after the first few winters? Pennsylvania hasn't figured out how to pay for maintaining the roads, bridges and transit systems it has, much less new ones. New parks, trails and recreation facilities sound nice, but local governments then have the burden of maintaining them. Conversely, using the funds to carry out maintenance projects that would have to be done anyway could help avoid property tax and fee increases or free up local funding for other needs.

• Should we emphasize quality or quantity? Although the goal is to create jobs, much of the money we receive will have to be used for construction materials, not wages. Using better quality, more energy-efficient materials could mean somewhat fewer construction jobs today, but lower maintenance costs in the future.

• Will projects create or retain permanent jobs in the future, as well as create temporary construction jobs? We could lose many of the jobs we already have in manufacturing and other sectors if we don't maintain the roads, water and sewer lines, and locks and dams that our businesses depend on. And using funds to build new industrial sites, small business incubators and research facilities could help create new businesses and facilitate expansions of existing firms, creating permanent jobs and strengthening our tax base.

• Finally, it will be important to think regionally in setting priorities. With this kind of money, we could accomplish some big goals -- eliminating sewage overflows in our rivers, capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, etc. But we can't do this if political pressures force the money to be spread across all 549 municipalities in the region. Just as workers cross municipal boundaries every day for jobs, our elected officials should work together across those same boundaries to achieve the greatest overall impact for the funding we receive.