As someone who has been around the federal policy debate on infrastructure for more than 30 years, I have to chuckle at the reemergence of the call for a massive infrastructure bill to bring this country out of our current economic woes. No question there is bipartisan support for all the roads and bridge needs that exist and the good jobs that would be created. And no question industry would support legislation that targets federal investment directed by state and local government leaders. However, putting the pieces together for a massive bill is a monumental task.
Serious consideration of infrastructure legislation in this political climate when most Americans want unity would draw deeper divisions in Congress for two significant reasons. First is that infrastructure used to be about asphalt, concrete and bridges. Now the infrastructure debate includes school construction, power grids, broadband, bike paths, climate policy – all important issues worthy of consideration – but deplete the limited funding that is currently available. Secondly, when it comes time to pay for an infrastructure bill, the deep political divide grows. The federal gas tax – a major source of federal investment - has been 18 cents a gallon since 1993, which means it has shrunk 44 percent in real terms since then. It would take an increase of 14 cents per gallon to offset that erosion. There are calls for a 50 cent increase to restore investment but also serve as an incentive to support alternative energy and mobility resources. So let’s have the infrastructure debate and that starts at the local level identifying the needs and appropriate federal and private sector roles to address the critical needs.
Serious consideration of infrastructure legislation in this political climate when most Americans want unity would draw deeper divisions in Congress for two significant reasons. First is that infrastructure used to be about asphalt, concrete and bridges. Now the infrastructure debate includes school construction, power grids, broadband, bike paths, climate policy – all important issues worthy of consideration – but deplete the limited funding that is currently available. Secondly, when it comes time to pay for an infrastructure bill, the deep political divide grows. The federal gas tax – a major source of federal investment - has been 18 cents a gallon since 1993, which means it has shrunk 44 percent in real terms since then. It would take an increase of 14 cents per gallon to offset that erosion. There are calls for a 50 cent increase to restore investment but also serve as an incentive to support alternative energy and mobility resources. So let’s have the infrastructure debate and that starts at the local level identifying the needs and appropriate federal and private sector roles to address the critical needs.