Infrastructure cannot afford to be ignored in this election

Somewhat lost in the shuffle in this Presidential election season perhaps like no other we have witnessed in our lifetimes, for a whole host of reasons, has been the onus, or lack thereof, of where each candidate stands on their respective plans to fix and repair the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, specifically transportation infrastructure.

That in of itself is not really news in the sense that the topic of transportation infrastructure does not typically lead the list of hot button issues that the candidates, as well as voters, are focused (or fixated) on. It was the case in the last election and the ones before that. In many ways, that is really just how it is.

But it really does not need to be the case, or at least it shouldn’t be, right? That rings especially true when considering that the country’s infrastructure is old, unsafe, falling apart and hurting our competitiveness. In fact, the American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave the USA a “D” grade on infrastructure. The group says there will be a $1.44 trillion infrastructure funding gap over the next decade. 

One would think with stark facts like those that infrastructure would get a more prominent seat at the policy or debate table, but that is clearly not the case.

But at the same time that is not to say it has gone completely ignored from the Presidential candidates either.

On the left, Hillary Clinton has proposed has pledged to create roughly 3.6 million new jobs by spending $275 billion on new infrastructure over a five-year period. That seems promising but it is well short of what is truly needed.

On the campaign trail, Clinton called her plan a “down payment on America’s future” that will help repair crumbling bridges and roads, among other benefits and also serve as a game-changer for creating good-paying, middle class jobs—especially for members of the construction, building, and transportation industries.

And on the right, Donald Trump has not put together a specific proposal, but he has described his vision as a “trillion-dollar rebuilding plan,” which would be “one of the biggest projects this country has ever undertaken, which he said would be funded through low interest rates and infrastructure bonds.

While infrastructure is not a hot-button campaign issue to be sure, a group of various industry associations, including the American Trucking Associations, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Retail Federation, among others, penned matching letters to Clinton and Trump, highlighting the need to ensure any new infrastructure proposal offered by the candidates has the greatest possible impact on the nation’s economy or transportation network.

The letter explained that while the December 2015 signing into law by President Obama of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act and its predecessor, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) have improved the effectiveness and efficiency of the country’s federal surface transportation programs, the fact remains that neither bill has made any progress in ensuring the long-run solvency of federal surface transportation programs.

The letter also pointed out that, instead, short-term, stop-gap funding measures in the form of transfers from the U.S. Treasury General Fund to the main source of transportation infrastructure funding, the Highway Trust Fund, which continually teeters on the edge of insolvency, have been the standard procedure, with $140 billion made in these transfers going back to 2008.

And the letter also pointed out that both bills failed to increase federal excise taxes on gasoline, i.e. the fuel tax, which has not been raised since 1993, or create any new sustainable revenue sources for the Highway Trust Fund.

“The resulting uncertainty has had dramatic effects on the ability of state and local governments to plan, fund, and construct transportation projects,” the letter noted. “As a consequence, the economy has missed an opportunity to increase good paying jobs and has hampered America’s economic competitiveness.”

While each candidate has called for increases in infrastructure investment, the letter stressed that any future infrastructure package needs to include additional sustainable revenue as a foundation to ensure the “permanent solvency of the Highway Trust Fund,” with additional revenue sources being long-term, reliable, dedicated, and focused on the users and beneficiaries of the U.S. transportation network to support the increased investments being called for in both Clinton and Trump’s proposals.

What happens from here remains to be seen, but regardless of the outcome of this election, the future of infrastructure needs to be viewed with the same urgency and importance as every other issue at the policy table.