If the draft of an infrastructure plan that leaked out and was published at Axios is any gauge of the plan that may ultimately be passed, there are some aspects that leap out. Here’s the definition of the scope:
Applies to: surface transportation, airports, passenger rail, maritime and inland waterway ports, flood control, water supply, hydropower, water resources, drinking water facilities, storm water facilities, Brownfield and Superfund sites.
That is a list that is backward-looking in the extreme. No mention is made of the power grid or communications. No mention is made of nuclear, solar, or wind power.
Additionally, the weighting system for proposals only gives 5% to the utility of the program:
6. Evidence to support how project will spur economic and social returns on investment (5%)
which will tend to favor the projects of high-taxing states.
The value of the project over the life expectancy of the infrastructure asset being funded should receive more consideration. How well do you think we can predict our surface, air, and ocean transport needs over the period of the next 50 years? I think that automation is likely to reduce those needs if anything. What do you think?
My contrarian view is that we’re overbuilt if anything and that an infrastructure building plan is unlikely to provide a great deal of economic benefit other than for those actually involved in the building—not a very great number due to the way these projects are executed today. This draft doesn’t make me feel more favorably disposed to a massive infrastructure spending program.
This is the first time I’ve seen Superfund/brownfields as infrastructure. The Superfund, which stopped being a fund 30 years ago probably could be refunded if it can close out some of these old sites, but I don’t know if that’s really because of a lack of money or if the sites just require long-term monitoring to make sure they removed everything. Media coverage is poor in this area.
You might have stopped after the first four words of that sentence. Apparently, the AI they use to write stories these days can’t do reporting.
I am predicting that the outcome of the infrastructure plan is that some billionaires and millionaires get a lot richer and we won’t have much to show for it.
Steve
My impression is that it is the GOP mirror image of the infrastructure part of the stimulus. Lets face it, utility of the program isn’t the point- taking care of political donors is.
SOS
The thing that most of the list of projects have in common is that they’re areas where the federal government had a key hand in creating the infrastructure: A lot of hydro power came from the New Deal. Local governments wanted the money to build, but obviously haven’t cared enough to maintain the “free” infrastructure that they were given – that says something about local priorities.
The draft plan is awfully vague. First questions I have are, “How much money is the Federal govt. going to put in? Where is that coming from? ” Plan says a project can’t be more than 20% federal money. Where is the rest coming from? There’s also a section for sharing of revenue. Again what? All those tolls? Most of the document is what we call “specious and high-sounding promises.”
State funding, local government funding, private funding, or some combination.