The more analysts examine President Trump’s $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan the less they find. For instance, the dollar figure is something of an illusion. The president actually proposes $200 billion in additional federal money during the next decade. The rest, according to the plan, would come from state, local and private sources.

So the notion, as often suggested in the campaign, that a Trump White House would mobilize Washington in a big way to help rebuild and upgrade the nation’s highways, airports, railroads and other public works just isn’t in the plan. Neither is there a vision of how projects would work as a whole to advance the economy and quality of life.

Consider one aspect of the plan, a dramatic change in how federal money would be invested. The most telling measure, accounting for 70 percent of the distribution formula, would be the capacity of a project to attract funding outside the federal government.

This would favor areas already doing well, or in a better position to raise matching money. It would lean toward projects likely to get done, anyway, not to mention those proposed by the private sector, carrying tolls or otherwise aimed at generating profits.

By contrast, the matter of whether a project “will spur economic and social returns on investment” would account for just 5 percent. As a result, it would count less whether a project brought broader benefits to the public.

Factor, too, the difficulty states and local governments would have raising their share of the project money, or 80 percent under the president’s initiative. Many already are strapped financially. The recently enacted tax law may make the task of raising new money more difficult for some states. So would shifting a greater burden to states for programs such as Medicaid and food assistance, as advocated by the president and many Republicans in Congress.

As Jacob Leibenluft of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has noted, there is at work a clear element giving with one hand and taking with the other. That $200 billion belongs in the context of such things as whacking mass transit funds, eliminating the innovative TIGER program and cutting new projects for the Army Corps of Engineers.

For years, the federal Highway Trust Fund has failed to generate sufficient revenues to meet scheduled needs. Its funding source, the federal gas tax, has not been raised since the early 1990s. So Congress has routed other money to the fund. The Trump budget proposes to end that replenishing practice without advancing an adequate replacement.

The president cannot argue credibly that the budget reductions he seeks would be made up by his infrastructure initiative. Fortunately, his budget plan has no prospect of winning congressional approval. His infrastructure proposal? It presents more of a lesson in its lack of a clear strategy.

The idea isn’t just to build and repair. An infrastructure plan should tilt toward pressing needs and seek to enhance the overall economy. The federal government, for instance, should do more to support Akron and other cities with the repair of their combined sewer systems, a national problem. Broadband belongs as a priority, and so, arguably, does mass transit. A strategy involves choices and direction, both lacking in the president’s proposal.