Following is a blog written by WPC Doug and Janet True Research Intern, Marina Dolgova. 

How can Washington state reduce the time and cost of building roads and infrastructure? Take the power from Washington D.C. and give it to your city hall.

The White House recently released the Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America. The outline proposes to spend $200 billion in discretionary budget over the next 10 years on American infrastructure without raising federal taxes. Instead, it would cut spending on unauthorized and inefficient federal programs.

One-hundred billion of that budget would be a part of the Incentives Program to fund anything from surface transportation, airports and passenger rail to water supply and hydropower.

The plan, if implemented, would:

• Shift the funding burden to state and local governments by flipping federal and state investment shares, which would place more responsibility on state and local governments;
• Remove unnecessary regulations that prolong project approvals; and
• Create incentives for the private sector to invest in public infrastructure by leveling the playing field.

Currently, the federal government funds 80% of infrastructure project costs, while state government finances the remaining 20%. The plan would flip those percentages. This could mean an increase in state and local taxes to fund infrastructure projects.

However, it would also encourage state governments to be more innovative, accountable, and thoughtful when it comes to spending. Since most of the money would have to come from state and local governments, elected officials would have to pick projects that will improve infrastructure and traffic congestion versus projects they desire for political or ideological reasons.

The Seattle Times listed multiple projects it claims would be in jeopardy. At the top of the list is Lynnwood Link light rail, for which Sound Transit officials were expecting $1.2 billion in federal money. However, as Sound Transit admits, the expansion of light rail will not improve traffic congestion and will serve less than 1% of daily trips by 2040.

President Trump’s plan, if implemented, could help ensure that federal dollars are spent on transportation projects that actually meet the public demand for congestion relief and increased mobility.

The plan would also remove unnecessary regulations that prolong the length of time it takes to complete a project. The national average time to complete a project is seven years. This is due to a long and often redundant approval process. Multiple agencies in charge of approving projects fail to cooperate, resulting in delays.

The plan would establish a “One Agency, One Decision” environmental review structure, which would reduce inefficiencies in environmental reviews. The plan would require reform of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which would also greatly improve permit approval times. Currently, if the project receives all required permits and is ready to move on to the next stage, anyone can file an objection based on NEPA, which further delays projects, increasing cost and completion time.

Last but not least, the plan creates incentives for the private sector to invest in publicly-used infrastructure, such as airports and sewage facilities, by extending eligibility for government financing programs like the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) and Private Activity Bonds (PABs). For example, it would extend the list of infrastructure projects that are eligible to be financed with tax-exempt bonds to roads, tunnels, bridges, and passenger railroads. The Trump Administration’s plan also proposes to maintain tax-exemption for public-purpose projects bought by private sector, increasing the likelihood of private investment.

Partnering with the private sector would help reduce completion times as well as project costs and the burden this imposes on the public. Additionally, healthy competition could spur the public sector to think more innovatively, invest wisely, and build better-quality infrastructure.

Although the Administration’s plan is not perfect, it outlines a solid framework for Congress to begin this important conversation. The President said he is willing to negotiate and consider legislators’ proposals. While some have stated this proposal undermines states’ needs, it could also be viewed as an incentive for state and local governments to be more accountable and practical.  

For the full report, visit: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000161-8a9d-d53a-a5f5-bffd597b0000