An Alternative to Federal Infrastructure Investment

President Donald Trump has proposed a trillion-dollar plan for infrastructure investment. The plan calls for public-private partnerships in which the federal government invests several hundred billion dollars to rebuild the nation's infrastructure, with the bulk of the investment coming from the private sector. The Trump administration maintains that for many years the nation has underinvested in infrastructure, particularly in surface transportation, and that massive new investments are now required to rebuild and expand infrastructure. Trump argues that the injection of federal dollars into infrastructure development will jumpstart the economy and spur long-term economic growth. Most studies reveal that the current state of the nation's infrastructure is poor, to say the least, and that rebuilding infrastructure will be extremely costly. One estimate found that rebuilding the highway system alone will require nearly a trillion dollars in investment projects over the next two decades. However, it is not clear that the federal government should undertake this infrastructure investment, because the federal government has a poor track record of effectively managing and completing such projects. For example, a number of studies reveal that federal investments in surface transportation have been or continue to be allocated inefficiently, incurring costs that exceed benefits, and there are many studies showing how special interests steer federal dollars toward unworthy infrastructure projects...

Later in the article, the author had this suggestion:

...Funding and management for transportation infrastructure should then be transferred from the federal government to the states. All taxes, fees, and revenues now collected by the federal government to finance transportation infrastructure should be collected and retained by the states. The Highway Trust Fund should be eliminated. Any savings from these reforms should be earmarked for debt reduction..."

I love this suggestion, because I despise the Federal Highway Trust Fund as it is used to coerce State governments to "voluntarily" comply with regulations that have nothing to do with the highways (things like education issues, etc.)

Thoughts?

The Interstate system was the best thing to ever happen in this country (other than maybe the moon shots). Nothing like it would have ever happened if didn’t exist...just a bunch of disorganized highways running around each state, just as things were prior to the Interstates.

And, of course, any state that has people passing through would stick up toll booths with outrageous tolls - not to pay for the highways, but to pay for whatever their big-city mayors wanted to spend it on (as is the case today with the PA Turnpike).

Naa, keep the federal system (including the gas tax) in place, but dedicate it ONLY to federal highways...as much as I don’t like the feds, the states have shown to be MUCH WORSE at managing this type of resource.

I agree largely with what you said, but the author of the article asserts that it is the case that states are better than the feds at this:

"...However, it is not clear that the federal government should undertake this infrastructure investment, because the federal government has a poor track record of effectively managing and completing such projects. For example, a number of studies reveal that federal investments in surface transportation have been or continue to be allocated inefficiently, incurring costs that exceed benefits, and there are many studies showing how special interests steer federal dollars toward unworthy infrastructure projects.

In contrast to the federal government, state and local governments have a better track record for investing in infrastructure. Research shows that state and local governments invest more efficiently in highways and mass transit compared to the federal government. This is largely because state and local governments prioritize the most important transportation infrastructure projects and invest dollars in projects where benefits are likely to exceed the costs. When state governments invest in projects that do incur losses – e.g., privatization of the Indiana interstate highway – they are more likely to stem losses and reallocate funds to other, more crucial projects...

Like I said, I am open for the most part on this to consider the options, and I could take your stance.

I admit that, even though I consider myself an economic conservative, I was never a believer of private industry in the space travel sector. I thought it was so big, that only the government could do it, but SpaceX has proven me wrong. (I am no fan of Elon Musk, but he has shown it can be done, if he didn't, someone else could)

Well, this is in addition to what the government collects in federal taxes and allocates to highway funds that are distributed to the states...NJ sounds like it has just gone above that and demanded more in state collected taxes (granted, suckers like us who pass through the state are paying this increased amount towards that state money as well!)

I assume NJ isn’t foregoing accepting federal money?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.