Traditionally, infrastructure projects — road and bridge repair, public-transit expansion and port development — are funded by federal, state and local grants or loans, the municipal bond market and, in some cases, the Highway Trust Fund or international banks. But the federal government, suffering from political fracturing and financial austerity, won’t pony up as much as before. The Highway Trust Fund could soon face bankruptcy, and many banks have backed away from long-maturity project finance.
On a brighter note, money has recently flowed into municipal bond market funds, and bond issuers have increased offerings, with the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association predicting $347 billion in issuance, while others forecast $360 billion.

Ground zero construction Sept. 9, 2011, in New York; Creative Commons photo courtesy of Flickr.com/zokugapredicting
This should be good news for infrastructure projects. Unfortunately, much of the issuance is for refinancing debt. Many states and municipalities are loath to take on additional debt because they’re unclear on revenue. Some investors hesitate to put in money because municipal bonds’ tax-free status could be jeopardized, because some see it as a “subsidy for the rich,” said George Friedlander, senior municipal strategist at Citigroup.
At the same time, the country faces a $2 trillion funding gap for backlogged infrastructure projects, and our deteriorating infrastructure “reduces the productivity and competitiveness of American firms and their goods” and costs families thousands of dollars each year, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers.
So, from where will the money come?
From cooperation, creativity and leadership, according to a report by Ernst & Young and the Urban Land Institute.
“The absence of a national policy on transportation and freight infrastructure continues to hamper U.S. ability to compete globally,” according to the report. In that absence, it’s vital that local and regional leaders step up and look at infrastructure projects in new ways. Think regionally, rather than disjointedly, and pool resources for long-term water, sewer and public-transit projects, the report suggests. Make the benefits of infrastructure clear, and demonstrate how it is an “important differentiator in a globally competitive marketplace.” Look at projects that add value in the long term, and invest in those that maximize each dollar and “attain multiple benefits from every dollar spent.”
Possible sources
Look to pension funds to sponsor projects. “[M]odest but steady investment yields can appeal to pension funds interested in reliable income returns to match with their long-term liabilities,” the report states. Look to cash-flush sovereign funds to be capital partners with engineering-concession companies, which are often willing to reduce their equity contribution.
Consider ballot measures, which “often pass when framed as beneficial for future economic growth and property.” The report identifies best practices that help ballot measures pass.
Lobby politicians, and encourage them to stick their necks out and advocate for increased user fees or raise water rates and train-ticket prices to maintain service. Call for a higher gas tax.
And, perhaps most importantly, understand public-private partnerships, in which a private firm or joint venture builds and manages a road, a port or other infrastructure. This doesn’t privatize the project; rather, it lets governments leverage local sources. Oregon is considering this, even for smaller infrastructure projects that were bundled together to make the value more appealing to private firms. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is looking for a private partner to help replace the Goethals Bridge, which links New Jersey to Staten Island — a project worth about $1 billion.
The Urban Land Institute and Ernst & Young report suggests:
- Using infrastructure to its maximum potential.
- Tapping whatever federal funds are available to maximize investment opportunities.
- Explicitly linking development and infrastructure.
- Exploiting the possibilities of collaboration and partnership.
“[N]ow more than ever, new approaches and new kinds of leadership are needed to connect infrastructure to values and to make clear its benefits,” wrote Patrick Phillips, CEO of the Urban Land Institute, and Howard Roth, global real estate leader at Ernst & Young.

Twitter
Facebook
Linkedin
RSS








Have you investigated the Houston drainage and paving solution that established a dedicated fund with pay-as-you-go funding? The interest costs of bonds over time for a program that needs annual investment becomes a prohibitive cost. Houston will not sell debt for these improvements over the twenty year period of the voter approved program and instead use all of its funding on operations, maintenance, and reconstruction after its debt is retired. The charter amendment that instituted this program was called Renew Houston and the ensuing program is called Rebuild Houston.
Hi Jeff, Thanks for taking the time to comment and you're right about the problem with bonds and projects that need annual maintenance. I have read of Renew/Rebuild Houston and thought it was pretty cool.
Forget the creative funding, we need to reduce the cost of construction. Specifically we need to stop or reduce the costly prebuild environmental impact studies, NIMBY lawsuits, planning alternative studies, etc. We also need to stop asking for architectural masterpieces when a simple bridge will do. These all add unneccesary cost. A simple road realignment by where I live will end up costing 4X more because of these studies and legal challanges.
The so called innovative financing of projects and not raising gas taxes or user fees will end up costing the taxpayer more money now and in the long run. We will look back on this in 20 years and say how could we have been so foolish.
Totally true, Leon. That's one reason most of the groups that work in this field advocate raising the gas tax — something that hasn't been done in decades (see AP at http://news.yahoo.com/states-looking-tolls-pay-hi… ). What I do disagree with is your time frame for recognizing our foolishness — I give it 7 years at best.
Stop diverting funds from the fuel tax or other dedicated taxes to other projects. Now only about 60% of highway fuel taxes go to highways. Fuel taxes are actually USER fees and not government subsidies. Transit and HOV lanes DO not pay for themselves nor do they relieve highway congestion. Donor states and entities are simply tired of donating money to states and entities who refuse to tax or charge for their services.
Totally agree, Mike. But, I'm not one of the people in Congress who can vote on this. So, make sure you let your legislators know your ideas, too. At some point, they've got to wake up and act. Perhaps we can all help make that happen.