1、Not Everything Is BrokenThe Future of U.S.Transportation and Water Infrastructure Funding and FinanceDebra Knopman,Martin Wachs,Benjamin M.Miller,Scott G.Davis,Katherine PfrommerC O R P O R A T I O NLimited Print and Electronic Distribution RightsThis document and trademark(s)contained herein are pr
2、otected by law.This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only.Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited.Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only,as long as it is unaltered and complete.Permission is required fr
3、om RAND to reproduce,or reuse in another form,any of its research documents for commercial use.For information on reprint and linking permissions,please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help mak
4、e communities throughout the world safer and more secure,healthier and more prosperous.RAND is nonprofit,nonpartisan,and committed to the public interest.RANDs publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.Support RANDMake a tax-deductible charitable contr
5、ibution at www.rand.org/giving/contributewww.rand.orgFor more information on this publication,visit www.rand.org/t/RR1739Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication.ISBN:978-0-8330-9971-6Published by the RAND Corporation,Santa Monica,Calif.Copyright 2017 RAND
6、 CorporationR is a registered trademark.Cover:The cover image,taken by U.S.Army Corps of Engineers photographer Mark Rankin,is of Chickamauga Lock and Dam,which is located seven miles North East of Chattanooga,T enn.,and was completed in 1940.The lock is owned by the T ennessee Valley Authority and
7、operated by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers.A project to replace the now-deteriorating lock began in 2003 and is scheduled for completion in 2023.iiiPrefaceFederal investment in infrastructure has been receiving more attention than usual since the Trump Administration and new Congress took office in
8、 January 2017.Not surprisingly,the debate is largely about money:how to finance repairs,new roads,and other projects without adding to the deficit,either by direct public spending or tax credits.Less discussed but no less important are issues concerning the policies that support the mature and urban
9、-centered econ-omy that the United States has nowrather than the economy it had decades ago,when most of the current terms of federal engagement were set.These issues are the focus of this report.We frame the infrastructure debate around the case for modernizing federal policies related to funding,f
10、inance,and project selection;recognizing the centrality of regional initia-tives that transcend local government and state boundaries;and understanding different types of financingpublic,private,and public-private partnerships.The premise is that if compel-ling public benefits can be articulated and
11、 financial incentives properly aligned on both the public and private sides,appropriate investment and maintenance will follow.Poorly targeted investment comes from poorly designed policy.Inadequate maintenance often is a symptom of management and governance issues.This report examines current polic
12、y and considers pos-sible improvements.Our intended audience includes members of Congress and their staffs,and other public officials and their staffs at the local,state,and federal levels;private investors and organizations committed to public-private partnerships;and the interested public.This pro
13、ject was supported by Lovida H.Coleman Jr.and other RAND donors,income from RANDs endowment,and RANDs program of self-initiated research.RAND Infrastructure Resilience and Environmental PolicyThis research reported here was conducted in the RAND Infrastructure Resilience and Envi-ronmental Policy Pr
14、ogram,which performs analyses on urbanization and other stresses.This includes research on infrastructure development;infrastructure financing;energy policy;urban planning and the role of public-private partnerships;transportation policy;climate response,mitigation,and adaption;environmental sustain
15、ability;and water resource management and coastal protection.Program research is supported by government agencies,foundations,and the private sector.This program is part of RAND Justice,Infrastructure and Environment,a unit of the RAND Corporation dedicated to improving policy-and decisionmaking in
16、a wide range of policy domains,including civil and criminal justice,infrastructure development and financ-ing,environmental policy,transportation planning and technology,immigration and border iv Not Everything Is Broken:The Future of U.S.Transportation and Water Infrastructure Funding and Financepr
17、otection,public and occupational safety,energy policy,science and innovation policy,space,and telecommunications.Questions or comments about this report should be sent to the project leader,Debra Knopman(Debra_Knopmanrand.org).For more information about the Infrastructure Resilience and Environmenta
18、l Policy Program,see www.rand.org/jie/irep or contact the direc-tor at ireprand.org.RAND VenturesThe RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure,healthier and more prosperous.RAND
19、is nonprofit,nonpartisan,and committed to the public interest.RAND Ventures is a vehicle for investing in policy solutions.Philanthropic contributions support our ability to take the long view,tackle tough and often-controversial topics,and share our findings in innovative and compelling ways.RANDs
20、research findings and recommenda-tions are based on data and evidence,and therefore do not necessarily reflect the policy prefer-ences or interests of its clients,donors,or supporters.This venture was made possible by a generous gift by Lovida H.Coleman Jr.and other RAND donors,income from RANDs end
21、owment,and RANDs program of self-initiated research.vContentsPreface.iiiFigures and Tables.viiSummary and Recommendations.ixAcknowledgments.xviiCHAPTER ONEIntroduction.1U.S.Infrastructure:What Is the Problem?.2Public Expectations of Infrastructure Investment.9Approach to Analysis.10How This Report I
22、s Organized.11CHAPTER TWOStatus of and Trends in Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure.13Color of Money.13Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure:2014.16Trends in Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure.19Trends in Public Spending on Highways and M
23、ass Transit.24Trends in Public Spending on Water Utilities.27Trends in Private-Sector Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure.27Findings.29CHAPTER THREEInfrastructure Funding and Finance Mechanisms Currently in Use in the United States.31Who Ultimately Pays for Infrastructure?.31Federal
24、Models for Funding.32State and Local Funding and Finance.39Rationale for Public-Private Partnerships.41Findings.46CHAPTER FOURFederal Transportation Policy and Its Impact on Infrastructure Investment.47Challenges of Building and Maintaining Transportation Infrastructure.47Features of Federal Policy
25、and Programs.48Issues in Funding.51Conditions and Needs Assessments.52vi Not Everything Is Broken:The Future of U.S.Transportation and Water Infrastructure Funding and FinanceProject Selection.55Findings.56CHAPTER FIVEFederal Water Policy and Its Impact on Infrastructure Investment.57Challenges of B
26、uilding and Maintaining Water Infrastructure.57Relevant Features of Federal Policies and Programs.62Conditions and Needs Assessments.65Project Selection.68Findings.69CHAPTER SIXPolicy Options.71Desirable Characteristics of Infrastructure Policy.71Recent Initiatives by the Federal Government.73Spendi
27、ng and Policy Changes Recently Proposed.79International Examples of Public-Private Partnership Models.82Synthesis of Findings.83CHAPTER SEVENSummary of Findings and Recommendations.85Findings.85Recommendations.88Abbreviations.93References.95viiFigures and TablesFigures S.1.Total Federal,State,and Lo
28、cal Spending on Infrastructure,19562014,as a Share of Gross Domestic Product.x S.2.Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure as a Share of Gross Domestic Product,by Type of Infrastructure,19562014.xi 2.1.Project Life Cycle.15 2.2.Infrastructure Funding by Public and Private Sectors.
29、15 2.3.Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure,2014.16 2.4.Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure,by Type,2014.17 2.5.Surface Transportation Funding Flows Among Levels of Government,2012.18 2.6.Shares of Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructur
30、e,by Category,2014.18 2.7.Shares of Public Spending for Capital and the Operation and Maintenance on Transportation and Water Infrastructure,by Level of Government,2014.19 2.8.Total Federal,State,and Local Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure,19562014.20 2.9.Total Federal,State,and Lo
31、cal Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure,as a Share of Gross Domestic Product,19562014.20 2.10.Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure as a Share of Gross Domestic Product,by Type of Infrastructure,19562014.21 2.11.Per Capita Federal,State,and Local Spending on Tran
32、sportation and Water Infrastructure,19562014.22 2.12.Total Federal Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure,19562014.22 2.13.Total State and Local Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure,1956 2014.23 2.14.Municipal Bond Issuance in USD Billions,19962016.23 2.15.Total Federal S
33、pending on Highways,19562014.24 2.16.Trends in Vehicle-Miles Traveled.25 2.17.Growth in Capital Funding for Mass Transit by Source,20002014.26 2.18.Growth in O&M Funding for Mass Transit by Source,20002014.26 2.19.Federal Spending Versus State and Local Spending on Water Infrastructure.28 2.20.Publi
34、c-Private Partnership Investment in the U.S.Transportation Sector.30 3.1.Federal Spending on State Revolving Funds and Other Appropriations for Water Infrastructure Grants.35 3.2.State and Local Revenue from Transportation-Specific Sources as a Fraction of Total State and Local Expenditure on Highwa
35、ys.42 3.3.Tax and Expenditure Limitations,2010.45viii Not Everything Is Broken:The Future of U.S.Transportation and Water Infrastructure Funding and Finance 4.1.Disparities in Structurally Deficient Bridges Among Counties.54 5.1.Trends in U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Appropriations,19602012.58 5.2.Tr
36、ends in U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Capital Stock,19282009.59 5.3.Comparison of Needs Assessments for Water Utility Infrastructure.66Tables 2.1.Total Expenditures on Transportation and Water Infrastructure,2014.29 3.1.Congressional Authorization Committees Responsible for Major Federal Transportatio
37、n and Water Infrastructure Programs.33 3.2.Sources of TIFIA Loan Repayments.36 5.1.Federal Cost-Sharing for Capital and O&M by Type of Water Infrastructure.63ixSummary and RecommendationsInfrastructure has become a popular topic,fueled by a widely held perception among the gen-eral public and many e
38、lected officials that the nations infrastructure is crumbling as a conse-quence of age and underinvestment.In fact,not all transportation and water infrastructure in the United States is falling apartfar from it.While highway,bridge,and water system main-tenance backlogs exist in many places,the dat
39、a do not support a picture of precipitous decline in total national spending or in the condition of the assets.Rather,the U.S.infrastructure story is far more nuanced and challenging.The purpose of infrastructure is to improve worker and business productivity and social welfare.Money alone will not
40、accomplish this goal;policy changes will also be required.Large infusions of direct federal spending or tax credits to repair or build anew may do some good by stimulating demand for construction serviceseven if the projects do not advance long-term priorities or address differing needs across the c
41、ountry.The federal government should focus its policies on incentivizing increased public and private spending on maintenance and modernization where it is needed.But increased spending will not fix what is broken in our approach to funding and financ-ing public worksand not everything is broken.Sta
42、te and local governments are in the best position to make needed improvements in the way struggling public transit and most other infrastructure systems are governed.But the federal government has a role to play in more ambitious regional initiatives to benefit the nation as a whole.Understanding th
43、e particulars of where help and resources are needed should guide Congress,states,and cities in their delibera-tions on policy changes,tax changes,and budgeting.Core to understanding the problem is knowing who or what is responsible for a failure to meet demand for improved infrastructure services.W
44、hile the federal government has his-torically played a large role at times,state and local governments shoulder the majority of the burden.In 2014,state and local governments accounted for 62 percent of capital expenditures and 88 percent of operations and maintenance(O&M)spending for transportation
45、 and water infrastructure(Congressional Budget Office CBO,2015).While transportation and water infrastructure are rarely considered together from a policy perspective,these two large infra-structure sectors share characteristics that are particularly relevant in todays policy debate:dominant public
46、ownership,extensive use of tax-exempt financing,and a tangled web of fed-eral involvement.1 These patterns stand in marked contrast to the energy,telecommunications,aviation,and freight rail sectors,which are dominated by private firms.In this report,we iden-1 We use definitions consistent with thos
47、e applied by CBO(2015).Water infrastructure includes containment systems(dams,levees,reservoirs,and watersheds),sources of freshwater(lakes and rivers),and water utilities(supply and wastewater treatment facilities).Transportation infrastructure includes highways(including bridges and tunnels),mass
48、transit,rail,aviation,and water transportation(ferries,inland waterways,and coastal ports).x Not Everything Is Broken:The Future of U.S.Transportation and Water Infrastructure Funding and Financetify the policies that promote and deter sustainment of and investment in U.S.transportation and water in
49、frastructure and suggest steps to better align them to public priorities.Over the past 60 years,public spending on infrastructure has generally tracked the growth of the U.S.economy.Total public spending on infrastructure as a share of gross domes-tic product(GDP),normalized in 2014 dollars,has been
50、 relatively stable since 1956,as shown in Figure S.1.Whether spending levels are adequate depends on the specifics.Between 1964 and 1980,total public spending on highways decreased as a percentage of GDP and has been relatively flat since then.Spending on mass transit,rail,water resources,and water
