Is using carbon tax money to fix bridges consistent with climate goals?

I've often thought that the concept of a carbon tax could be merged with the gas tax that pays for transportation. Now it looks like Washington State is considering using some of the cap and trade carbon fund to fix old bridges. Some legislators have suggested that fixing a bridge can save fuel versus closing the bridge and having a long detour. Also putting bike lanes on an upgraded bridge is good for climate goals.

I think carbon taxes are similar to utility taxes. The concept can relate to all energy and transportation systems, such as the power grid. The taxes could be merged into one concept for maintaining, upgrading and making more green those infrastructure systems. Future legislators and voters could decide on the priorities for spending the money all the way from just maintaining the systems that we have to conversions for lower carbon footprint . This would depend on how much voters wish to transition toward green versus just maintaining the systems as is. It seems like there is never enough money even for just maintaining roads and so forth.

There is also a proposal to take money away from the carbon fund and use it to fill a hole in the state budget for funding a child tax credit; sort of like robbing the carbon fund to pay for something else. I think keeping the money closer to the needs of infrastructure, such as maintaining bridges, is a better way to go, if the carbon funds need to be diverted toward regular budget items.