“Infrastructure Week” unfortunately became something of a punchline with the White House’s on-again, off-again dedication to the issue. But that doesn’t mean real infrastructure policy has to sit on the sidelines. There are bipartisan principles for success when it comes to infrastructure and, if the White House really dedicates itself, a way to actually get something done in a divided Congress.
The cornerstone of a successful infrastructure policy would be a strong emphasis on public-private partnerships. Structure infrastructure development around public-private partnerships have resulted in some of the most successful infrastructure developments this century, and have allowed for increased investment while minimizing the amount of waste and abuse that inevitably result from central government planning and traditional infrastructure contracting.
In addition to public-private partnerships, new infrastructure that is paid for by those who actually use it is the best way to protect taxpayers from being left on the hook for unnecessary government spending. While the federal gas tax was originally meant to serve this purpose, it has become increasingly disconnected from the way people use infrastructure. The highway trust fund is in shambles and there’s bipartisan consensus that steep gas tax hikes are not the way to go — fuel efficiency advances and other complications of private and commercial transportation make gas tax hikes untenable.
A better approach than to rely on federal gas taxes would be to explore what’s called a “Vehicle Miles Traveled” fee. A coalition of experts from free market groups around the country recently wrote to Congress to advocate for a nationwide mileage-based user fee pilot program. This would adhere closer to the principle that the drivers and riders that most use the nation’s highway infrastructure would be the ones responsible for paying for it. This would make paying for infrastructure more fair, more proportional, more stable, and more adaptable.
The infrastructure agenda needs to be more than just highways, however. Freight rail serves as an integral part of interstate commerce, and the federal body charged with regulating freight rail, the Surface Transportation Board, recently had two new commissioners sworn in to fill out its membership. Freight rail has served as a standout portion of our infrastructure ever since the Staggers Act of 1980 deregulated the industry: the infrastructure is privately-funded and in better condition than many other infrastructure sectors.
New threats have emerged to this success: the Obama-era Surface Transportation Board proposed harmful regulations that should be permanently taken off the table by the new Surface Transportation Board commissioners, and members of Congress should defeat some of the dangerous proposals that have emerged that would do harm to the successful freight rail infrastructure. Indeed, a new memo issued by the Office of Management and Budget has made it clear that there are too many regulations (with this STB regulation being a primary example) that are not subject to rigorous cost-benefit analysis.
Despite the numerous false starts that have been experienced for a federal “infrastructure week,” President Trump’s infrastructure principles have been lauded by policymakers across the political spectrum. There’s a solid basis to start with to get a bipartisan infrastructure plan across the finish line, if the Trump administration dedicates its political capital to the plan.
Kevin Glass (@KevinWGlass) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is vice president of communications and outreach at the National Taxpayers Union.
