Abstract
Since its founding, the United States has understood the importance of infrastructure to the growth of a vibrant entrepreneurial economy. In the 19th century, canals, riverboats, and railroads provided the means to overcome geography and distance, first to move agricultural products and natural resources and later, manufactured goods, from source to market. Rivers and steam engines provided power to mills and factories long before the advent of commercial electricity and the telegraph and telephone connected people in real time and enabled enormous leaps forward in efficiency and productivity. The infrastructure marvels of the 20th century—high-speed interstate highways, a national electric grid, ubiquitous air connections, and the Internet—only refined the goal of moving goods, people, and information quickly and cheaply, it did not create a new paradigm. Consequently, at the beginning of the 21st century, the nation is faced with numerous questions regarding the shape of its economic future and the infrastructure systems to support continued economic growth, particularly when those systems are aged and often obsolete. How governments at all levels respond to these challenges will be a fundamental domestic policy issue for years to come.
One of the few issues that currently appears to enjoy bipartisan political consensus, if not approaches and solutions, is that there is a genuine need for the United States to address a vast backlog associated with aged and often functionally obsolete civil infrastructures. However, once we move beyond the need to “do something,” questions of what to do, how to do it, and who will pay for it tend to postpone needed action. This Special Issue of Public Works Management & Policy (PWMP) is dedicated to the premise that our traditional methods of planning, designing, financing, and constructing infrastructure are no longer up to the challenges of a dynamic and changing planet and the expectations of a diverse population that is approaching 320 million people. We are pleased to present an array of commentaries from both established experts and new voices on how the United States might plan, fund, and finance its next generation of infrastructure. Although the focus of these efforts must be long term, solutions must be flexible and adaptive to a changing world that is fraught with uncertainly.
President Obama had barely taken the oath of office in 2009 when he was hailed as the second coming of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. This was not surprising; the historical parallels of a Democratic administration taking office in the midst of economic calamity were simply too strong to resist. Mired in the worst economic times since the Great Depression, spending on public works and infrastructure seemed a logical path back from the edge of a financial abyss. As a result, infrastructure was treated more as a stimulus and employment tool rather than an element of a national economic growth strategy. Layered on top of massive assistance packages to the financial and auto industries, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was touted to open the floodgates to “shovel-ready” projects that would allow America to build its way back to prosperity. Unfortunately, times had changed since the 1930s and in an era of extensive environmental review and “Buy American” provisions, shovel-ready projects were often slow to get underway and despite spending more than US$100 billion, neither prosperity, unemployment, nor the overall condition of the nation’s infrastructure were immediately affected by the mostly small, local projects that were ultimately funded around the country with some still awaiting final approvals.
The changing of the political guard, now in progress, provides a fresh opportunity for the nation to identify and confront its most pressing infrastructure challenges. For example, natural resources, agriculture, and manufacturing along with trade and transportation still account for more than a quarter of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) but many of the seaports, waterways, railroads, and highways that were built in the 19th and 20th centuries to bring these products to market have become bottlenecks due to long-delayed repair and replacement. The entire U.S. economy as well as consumers would benefit from modern, more efficient, and resilient supply chains.
The tragedy of the Flint, Michigan, water supply underscores a pervasive health problem that must be addressed at the national level. Lead piping for domestic water service was ubiquitous throughout the United States through the middle of the 20th century. Millions of people living in older homes, many of them children, are at risk of exposure to this toxic metal, and the health impacts of lead on the very young can be catastrophic and usher in a lifetime of medical problems and disability. How the nation deals with this problem and finds the means to pay for its solution will be a fundamental challenge for the new administration.
In addition, the United States is now in a position of world leadership in the production of oil and natural gas. Technology developed in the United States has enabled the profitable recovery of huge volumes of hydrocarbons previously trapped in dense rock formations. Moving these products to domestic points of refining, consumption, or export will require massive investments in transmission facilities that industry is prepared to make and which will create many thousands of jobs. However, extracting and transporting huge volumes of hydrocarbons is not without risk to the environment and public safety. Going forward, projects must be held to the highest standards so that the significant economic and social benefits of energy security are achieved in a safe and environmentally responsible manner.
Finally, devastating storms such as Hurricane Sandy as well as the phenomena of “fair weather flooding” that is affecting more and more coastal areas have demonstrated that we must take steps to adapt to climate change and sea level rise. Not necessarily the drastic realignment of the economy and draconian tax strategies called for by some, but pragmatic and risk-based approaches that will address our vulnerabilities to rising sea level, storm surges, and coastal flooding. Investments in infrastructure to increase resiliency will not only benefit future generations but also spin off employment and beneficial economic activity today.
In the face of all these challenges, the United States is fiscally constrained to a degree not seen in almost a century. The traditional funding model for infrastructure where the Federal government paid up to 90% of project costs is no longer sustainable and needs to change. There are 50 states and countless more sub-units of government with revenue raising authority that could fund the bulk of what needs to be done but so long as the problem is framed as one of either massive federal spending or doing nothing, we are likely to see nothing get done. In addition, many projects of truly national import, such as upgrading the electrical grid and improving critical freight rail bottlenecks, fall wholly or partially within the private sector and should not be the financial responsibility of governments at any level. Rather than simply nationalizing the cost of what are often local or private sector issues, perhaps the more appropriate role for the federal government is to provide leadership and incentives for getting everyone to play their part.
The first step in this process is the recognition that traditional approaches are not up to the task and new paradigms are needed. How well the nation succeeds in embracing change and identifying and implementing new approaches will largely determine the value of the infrastructure legacy we bequeath to future generations. Hopefully, the ideas presented herein can help to guide the many decisions that will need to be made if this challenge is to be met successfully. But ideas alone are not enough. We also need to deepen our interpretations and understanding of infrastructure, the critical services it provides, the quality and availability of data, and perhaps most importantly, generate substantive debates to arrive at consensus on what a 21st-century U.S. infrastructure policy looks like, how will we fund it, and who will pay for it.