Search

In an essay almost 30 years ago, Professor Dick Netzer of NYU asked the question "Do We Really Need a National Infrastructure Policy?" and came to the conclusion that we did not. As the Biden Administration prepares to roll out a multi-trillion dollar infrastructure package, the nation is faced with numerous questions regarding the infrastructure systems necessary to support continued economic growth and environmental sustainability. The purpose of this essay is to look to recent history for guidance for how to proceed by revisiting the underlying premises of the Netzer essay and reconsider whether a National Infrastructure Policy is needed. Because linking infrastructure to broader public policy objectives could both unite the nation and position it to address the many challenges that the 21st century will present, I believe the idea of a National Infrastructure Policy definitely deserves a second look. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many policymakers, operators and developers of public infrastructure (such as highways, airports, water utilities), and academics believe that there is a funding deficit for US infrastructure. Traditional funding sources, such as fuel taxes, are widely deemed inadequate and unlikely to be increased. Tolls and other user fees provide additional funding sources. Coupled with public-private partnership contracting and delivery methods (P3s), these fees can provide new funding sources and ways to reduce delivery costs, as many recent transactions demonstrate, such as the Chicago Skyway and the State of Texas transactions. Private equity is an important component of P3 financing and as much as $80 to $130 billion (B) is available in private equity investment funds (PEIFs). PEIFs impose certain requirements on the projects and companies they finance, most importantly on short duration of the investment, as little as ten years, in some cases, from initial investment to final payback. This causes potential conflicts with new, greenfield projects, which have a three to five year construction period and several years of ramp-up in the early operating years. PEIFs can serve as a useful funding source if: 1) policymakers anticipate this conflict, including anticipating short duration, allowing for novation of private contracts to other parties, are clear about re-gearing issues, seek ways to reduce project development periods and/or if 2) PEIFs can be structured with longer durations and/or PEIF funding partners, especially endowments and pension funds, can make direct, longer duration investments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]