1、Not Everything Is Broken The Future of U.S. Transportation and Water Infrastructure Funding and Finance Debra Knopman, Martin Wachs, Benjamin M. Miller, Scott G. Davis, Katherine Pfrommer C O R P O R A T I O NLimited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained h
2、erein are protected 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. Permissi
3、on is required from 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
4、challenges to help make 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 RAND Make a ta
5、x-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1739 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-0-8330-9971-6 Published by the RAND Corporation, S
6、anta Monica, Calif. Copyright 2017 RAND Corporation R 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
7、 is owned by the T ennessee Valley Authority and 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.iii Preface Federal investment in infrastructure has been receiving more attention than usual since the
8、 Trump Administration and new Congress took office in 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 issu
9、es concerning the policies that support the mature and urban-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 aroun
10、d the case for modernizing federal policies related to funding, finance, 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. T
11、he premise is that if compel - ling public benefits can be articulated and 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 s
12、ymptom of management and governance issues. This report examines current policy 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 organ
13、izations committed to public-private partnerships; and the interested public. This project 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 Policy This research re
14、ported here was conducted in the RAND Infrastructure Resilience and Envi - ronmental Policy Program, 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-privat
15、e partnerships; transportation policy; climate response, mitigation, and adaption; environmental sustainability; 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, Infr
16、astructure and Environment, a unit of the RAND Corporation dedicated to improving policy- and decisionmaking in a wide range of policy domains, including civil and criminal justice, infrastructure development and financ- ing, environmental policy, transportation planning and technology, immigration
17、and border iv Not Everything Is Broken: The Future of U.S. Transportation and Water Infrastructure Funding and Finance protection, public and occupational safety, energy policy, science and innovation policy, space, and telecommunications. Questions or comments about this report should be sent to th
18、e project leader, Debra Knopman (Debra_Knopmanrand.org). For more information about the Infrastructure Resilience and Environmental Policy Program, see www.rand.org/jie/irep or contact the direc- tor at ireprand.org. RAND Ventures The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutio
19、ns to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND Ventures is a vehicle for investing in policy solutions. Philanthropic contributions support o
20、ur ability to take the long view, tackle tough and often-controversial topics, and share our findings in innovative and compelling ways. RANDs 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
21、 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 endowment, and RANDs program of self-initiated research.v Contents Preface . iii Figures and Tables .vii Summary and Recommendations ix Acknowledgments
22、 . xvii CHAPTER ONE Introduction 1 U.S. Infrastructure: What Is the Problem? 2 Public Expectations of Infrastructure Investment . 9 Approach to Analysis .10 How This Report Is Organized 11 CHAPTER TWO Status of and Trends in Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure 13 Color of Money13 Pub
23、lic Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure: 2014 .16 Trends in Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure 19 Trends in Public Spending on Highways and Mass Transit 24 Trends in Public Spending on Water Utilities 27 Trends in Private-Sector Spending on Transportation and
24、Water Infrastructure 27 Findings 29 CHAPTER THREE Infrastructure Funding and Finance Mechanisms Currently in Use in the United States 31 Who Ultimately Pays for Infrastructure?.31 Federal Models for Funding .32 State and Local Funding and Finance 39 Rationale for Public-Private Partnerships 41 Findi
25、ngs . 46 CHAPTER FOUR Federal Transportation Policy and Its Impact on Infrastructure Investment .47 Challenges of Building and Maintaining Transportation Infrastructure .47 Features of Federal Policy and Programs 48 Issues in Funding .51 Conditions and Needs Assessments .52vi Not Everything Is Broke
26、n: The Future of U.S. Transportation and Water Infrastructure Funding and Finance Project Selection 55 Findings . 56 CHAPTER FIVE Federal Water Policy and Its Impact on Infrastructure Investment .57 Challenges of Building and Maintaining Water Infrastructure 57 Relevant Features of Federal Policies
27、and Programs 62 Conditions and Needs Assessments .65 Project Selection . 68 Findings 69 CHAPTER SIX Policy Options .71 Desirable Characteristics of Infrastructure Policy 71 Recent Initiatives by the Federal Government .73 Spending and Policy Changes Recently Proposed 79 International Examples of Pub
28、lic-Private Partnership Models 82 Synthesis of Findings .83 CHAPTER SEVEN Summary of Findings and Recommendations 85 Findings 85 Recommendations . 88 Abbreviations .93 References .95vii Figures and Tables FiguresS.1. Total Federal, State, and Local Spending on Infrastructure, 19562014, as a Share of
29、 Gross Domestic Product xS.2. Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure as a Share of Gross Domestic Product, by Type of Infrastructure, 19562014 . xi2.1. Project Life Cycle 152.2. Infrastructure Funding by Public and Private Sectors 152.3. Public Spending on Transportation and Wate
30、r Infrastructure, 2014162.4. Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure, by Type, 2014 172.5. Surface Transportation Funding Flows Among Levels of Government, 2012 .182.6. Shares of Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure, by Category, 2014 .182.7. Shares of Public
31、 Spending for Capital and the Operation and Maintenance on Transportation and Water Infrastructure, by Level of Government, 2014 .192.8. Total Federal, State, and Local Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure, 19562014 . 202.9. Total Federal, State, and Local Spending on Transportation a
32、nd Water Infrastructure, as a Share of Gross Domestic Product, 19562014 . 202.10. Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure as a Share of Gross Domestic Product, by Type of Infrastructure, 19562014 .212.11. Per Capita Federal, State, and Local Spending on Transportation and Water In
33、frastructure, 19562014 . 222.12. Total Federal Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure, 19562014 . 222.13. Total State and Local Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure, 1956 2014 . 232.14. Municipal Bond Issuance in USD Billions, 19962016 . 232.15. Total Federal Spending on
34、Highways, 19562014 . 242.16. Trends in Vehicle-Miles Traveled 252.17. Growth in Capital Funding for Mass Transit by Source, 20002014 . 262.18. Growth in O 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 stimu
35、lating demand for construction serviceseven if the projects do not advance long- term priorities or address differing needs across the country. The federal government should focus its policies on incentivizing increased public and private spending on maintenance and modernization where it is needed.
36、 But increased spending will not fix what is broken in our approach to funding and financ- ing public worksand not everything is broken. State and local governments are in the best position to make needed improvements in the way struggling public transit and most other infrastructure systems are gov
37、erned. But the federal government has a role to play in more ambitious regional initiatives to benefit the nation as a whole. Understanding the particulars of where help and resources are needed should guide Congress, states, and cities in their delibera- tions on policy changes, tax changes, and bu
38、dgeting. Core to understanding the problem is knowing who or what is responsible for a failure to meet demand for improved infrastructure services. While the federal government has his- torically played a large role at times, state and local governments shoulder the majority of the burden. In 2014,
39、state and local governments accounted for 62 percent of capital expenditures and 88 percent of operations and maintenance (O however, uncertainty in federal policy has driven bond issues down in 2017. Industry analysts project that spending in the water and wastewater utility sector alone will excee
40、d $532 billion over the next ten years, a 28 percent increase over the previous decade (Nabers, 2016). If this new spending materializes at a rate of around 2.5 percent annually above infla- tion, the spending shortfalls in the water sector projected by the American Society of Civil Engineers (2013)
41、 and others would largely disappear. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) projected that increasing spending on highways and bridges by around 2.8 percent Figure S.1 Total Federal, State, and Local Spending on Infrastructure, 19562014, as a Share of Gross Domestic Product SOURCE: CBO, 2015, Exhibit 3, p. 10, based on data from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the U.S. Census Bureau, and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. RAND RR1739-S.1 Percentage of GDP 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0 2011 2006 2001 1996 1991 1986 1981 1976 1971 1966 1961 1956 Year
