Rebuilding America's Infrastructure

Introduction

Traffic is detoured around a construction area near the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in Annapolis, Md., on May 21. President Biden is seeking a $2.3 trillion package to upgrade the nation's infrastructure, but congressional Republicans oppose its cost and scope. (AFP/Getty Images/Jim Watson)

Go to top

Overview

When temperatures in Texas plummeted in February, 4.5 million Texans lost power, leaving them in the dark and cold for days. Half the state's residents had problems with their drinking water — or no drinking water at all. Grocery stores ran out of crucial items. At least 194 people died.1

The massive failures in one of the country's most energy-rich states demonstrated the fragility of the U.S. infrastructure. The outages were preventable, but state officials and private businesses had focused more on deregulating the power industry and keeping costs low instead of preparing for extreme weather. So, when temperatures dipped to single digits, hitting lows many Texas cities had not experienced in decades, parts of the electric grid began to fail.2

Karla Perez and Esperanza Gonzalez try to stay warm in their Houston apartment during a massive power outage in February. Temperatures in the single digits resulted in widespread failures in Texas' energy infrastructure, causing 4.5 million residents to lose power and, in some cases, access to safe drinking water. (Getty Images/Go Nakamura)

Power companies in Texas had built their grids to handle the sweltering heat of southern summers while ignoring regulators' pleas to also prepare for extreme cold spells, which also occur, although rarely.3

The failures were not just limited to electricity suppliers. Natural gas companies also had inadequately prepared for winter weather, so many power plants that burn natural gas went offline. Meanwhile, water companies struggled to deliver clean drinking water while the power was out.4

The outages also highlighted how minority communities suffer disproportionately from infrastructure failures: Only 10 percent to 11 percent of residents in predominantly white neighborhoods suffered blackouts, compared to 47 percent of those in predominantly Black and Hispanic areas, according to the Rockefeller Foundation.5

“That storm really broke people's trust,” says Ben Hirsch, a co-director of West Street Recovery, a disaster recovery organization that helps residents in several minority-dominated northeast Houston neighborhoods. “It really makes you feel excluded because you are excluded.” Two months after the outages ended, only 70 homes in the West Street area had water access restored, while another 100 households were still on the waiting list.

“Having water access is a basic right that no one in America — no one in the world — should have to worry about,” Hirsch says. “The deep freeze was more transparent than other disasters in showing how choices led to the suffering.”

President Biden says he wants to restore trust that the nation's infrastructure will be reliable for all Americans. The outline of an expansive eight-year, $2.3 trillion infrastructure package, which he unveiled in March, would not only upgrade neglected roads, railways and bridges but also fight climate change by expanding green energy sources, address long-standing racial inequities in infrastructure and provide health care aides for the elderly and disabled — funded, in part, by higher corporate taxes.6 Biden's proposal is especially audacious, given how difficult it has been in recent years to reach political consensus regarding what types of infrastructure should be built and how to pay for it.

For more than a decade Congress has been unable to agree on how to fund U.S. road and transit networks, the heart of any traditional infrastructure program, and Democrats and Republicans disagree on what kind of infrastructure to build and what qualifies as infrastructure. But by making infrastructure one of his earliest priorities, Biden is trying to force Congress and the country to wrestle with the issues.

“What I'm proposing is a one-time capital investment of roughly $2 trillion in America's future, spread largely over eight years,” Biden said. “It will generate historic job growth, historic economic growth, help businesses to compete internationally, create more revenue as well. They are among the highest-value investments we can make in the nation — investing in our infrastructure.”7

But Biden's measure faces stiff opposition from congressional Republicans, who object to the cost and scope of the proposal. Instead, Republicans have proposed a smaller infrastructure package that emphasizes traditional infrastructure projects, such as roads and bridges, and would fund the improvements by, among other things, imposing taxes on electric vehicles rather than raising corporate taxes.

“You never say never around here,” Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, said in May. “But there's a big divide there. I think it has to be a lot smaller than what [Democrats are] talking about. I don't think you need $2 trillion.”8

Metro North trains are mostly empty at New York City's Grand Central Station in May 2020 as the COVID-19 pandemic kept many people home. Ridership on public transit plummeted more than 50 percent in 2020, prompting some agencies to reconsider their mission. (Getty Images/Roy Rochlin)

Overall, U.S. infrastructure is among the world's best, rated 13th among 141 countries by the World Economic Forum in 2019.9 But the American Society of Civil Engineers, which evaluates the status of U.S. infrastructure every four years, gave the country's overall infrastructure a C- this year, despite “modest but meaningful improvements” in recent years.10

Other reports have highlighted the country's massive infrastructure needs. The Federal Highway Administration, for example, estimated that federally supported roads will need $786 billion in improvements through 2034.11 One in three of the nation's bridges is structurally deficient, according to an analysis by roadbuilders, but at current rates of work, it would take 40 years to fix or replace them all.12 The Environmental Protection Agency, meanwhile, recently estimated that the country would have to spend nearly $473 billion over the next two decades to maintain safe drinking water systems.13

The United States also needs to revamp its infrastructure to handle huge ongoing environmental and societal changes, as extreme weather events, many related to climate change, become more common. In 2020, the North Atlantic saw a record-breaking 30 named tropical storms with 12 of them making landfall in the United States, another record, while wildfires devastated Western states and a powerful windstorm called a derecho flattened homes, grain bins and cornfields in Iowa and Illinois. Rising seas caused, in part, by melting glaciers threaten coastal areas ranging from New York City's financial district to Norfolk's Navy facilities in Virginia, Louisiana's protective wetlands and California's cliffside homes.14

State and local officials have responded by protecting existing facilities and, in some cases, trying to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions scientists say are causing the changing weather patterns. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, is pushing to end the sale of all gasoline-powered vehicles in his state by 2035. Many Eastern coastal states are requiring utilities to buy power from offshore wind turbines — turbines that have yet to be built.

Automakers have signaled a shift, too, with Honda, Jaguar, Volvo and General Motors announcing plans to switch production to all electric vehicles, requiring more power generation, electric grid improvements and installation of a huge number of charging stations. And the traditional source of funds for new roads — taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel — will have to be re-examined.15

The COVID-19 outbreak has strained the existing infrastructure and laid bare many inequities associated with it. As schools and offices closed, patchy internet coverage in some underserved communities made it difficult for students to keep up with schoolwork or for some people to work from home, file for unemployment benefits, visit their doctors remotely or sign up for a coronavirus vaccine.16

In addition, changing travel patterns due to pandemic-related lockdowns have strained public transit agencies' revenue, as rush-hour subway trains emptied out while essential workers kept taking buses. Transit agencies are rethinking their mission, especially if wealthier commuters opt to work from home more often after the pandemic.17 Highways emptied, as well, resulting in more traffic deaths as speeding increased on wide-open roads.18

Long Description

The growing public awareness of racial inequities, highlighted by the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, spurred political leaders to consider how infrastructure can exacerbate race-based disparities. The Biden administration has encouraged such thinking.19 The same storm that knocked out power to Texas, for example, left the majority Black city of Jackson, Miss., without running water for weeks, prompting intense debates about who ought to fix its beleaguered water system. (See Short Feature.)

Several polls have shown that most Americans support Biden's infrastructure proposal, although Democrats favor it far more than Republicans. In April, while 56 percent of respondents overall backed Biden's plan, 92 percent of Democrats favored it but only 18 percent of Republicans did, according to an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll. Fifty-one percent of independents backed Biden's plan.20

With the public engaged and the president leading the charge, the chances of Congress passing a major infrastructure improvement package appeared to be better than in a long time, although the scope and shape of that proposal is still murky.

Tom Smith, the executive director of the American Society of Civil Engineers, says he is encouraged by how the debate has gone so far this year. “This time, there's a real recognition on both sides of the aisle and among the American public that this is a critical issue for the future of our country and for future generations,” he says. “We are coming out of a pandemic and need to stimulate the economy. For jobs, global competitiveness, climate change and the need for resilient, sustainable infrastructure, the time is absolutely right now to do this.”

As the public, federal and state lawmakers and infrastructure specialists discuss how to update the nation's infrastructure, here are some of the questions being debated:

Should Congress limit infrastructure initiatives to transportation?

Some of the central questions on Capitol Hill over Biden's infrastructure bill are very basic, starting with the definition of infrastructure.

Typically, conversations about infrastructure have focused largely on transportation — roads, bridges and mass transit. These are some of the nation's most visible physical assets.

But recent crises have highlighted other kinds of infrastructure needs, such as the electric grid failure in Texas, lead poisoning in drinking water in Flint. Mich., and the inadequacy of internet connections for schoolchildren studying at home during the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, technological advances such as electric cars or “connected vehicles” — computerized vehicles that communicate with each other or with infrastructure such as stoplights — require more robust road networks, ubiquitous internet connections and increased electric charging capacity.

Electric vehicle charging stations, such as this one at a supermarket in Monterey Park, Calif., are popping up in parking lots across the country. President Biden's $2.3 trillion infrastructure proposal calls for building more charging stations as he and some auto industry leaders tout electric vehicles as the future of the industry. (AFP/Getty Images/Frederic J. Brown)

Biden's infrastructure proposal, known as the American Jobs Plan, includes spending for traditional “hard” infrastructure items such as roads, trains and water pipes, as well as less-conventional items such as charging stations and environmental cleanups. It also includes so-called human infrastructure improvements, such as job training, research and support for home health care workers.21

“It's time for people to be bolder and more forward-looking about what infrastructure looks like,” White House spokesperson Jen Psaki told reporters. “Infrastructure is not just the roads we get a horse and buggy across. Infrastructure is about broadband. It's about replacing lead pipes so people have water. It's about rebuilding our schools.”

Republicans have criticized the president for including too many types of spending in the plan. “I don't think the bill can grow into a multitrillion-dollar catch-all,” said Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., who serves on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Referring to a plan to take drastic action to curb climate change, proposed by some of Congress' most progressive members and called the Green New Deal, Graves said, “A transportation bill needs to be a transportation bill, not a Green New Deal. It needs to be about roads and bridges.”22

In fact, when a group of Senate Republicans met with Biden on infrastructure at the White House in May, the plan they offered narrowed the scope to include roads and bridges, public transit, rail, water systems, ports, airports, broadband and support for safety agencies that oversee interstate buses, pipelines and highways.

“Let's be clear,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican and author of the alternative bill, wrote on Twitter, “[Biden's] proposal goes beyond what constitutes infrastructure.”23

Smith, of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said his group's report card typically covers physical assets such as schools, hazardous waste storage and clean-ups, parks, energy projects and broadband.

“That is where the most common agreement is,” Smith says. “Republican and Democrat, urban and rural, the public has recognized the physical infrastructure definition. There's pretty common acceptance that we need to invest in our physical infrastructure.”

Long Description

But so far the White House is sticking with its broader approach, especially in pushing for support for home health care workers. It has also proposed a second piece of its jobs initiative, called the American Families Plan, which would more directly help families with child care and paid leave.24

Rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, Psaki said, should include “rebuilding the backbone and the infrastructure of our workforce, because there are 2 million women who are out of the workforce who, hopefully, if we could help them with caregiving, will be able to rejoin.”25

During his presidential campaign last year, Biden proposed incorporating better pay for home health care workers, universal child care and paid family leave in any infrastructure proposals. And to energize a broad base of voters — not just the white men who dominate the construction industry, but also women, especially women of color — he focused on boosting the “care economy.” Some economists advised Biden that spending money on this sector — the women who had to leave their jobs to care for children or elderly parents and the health workers who provide home care — could boost the nation's economy more than just spending on traditional infrastructure.26

The issue remains salient. Nearly 55 percent of the people who lost jobs during the pandemic were women. Focusing on traditional infrastructure would not help their situation, because 90 percent of traditional infrastructure jobs are held by men.27

Janelle Jones, the first Black woman to serve as the Labor Department's chief economist, said the eight-year infrastructure investment envisioned by the Biden plan goes far beyond simply restoring the prepandemic status quo for women of color. Rather, she said, it is “a once-in-a-generation investment in the sectors that mostly employ Black and brown women.” She argued that for these women, such investments would change “the entire trajectory of their economic life.”28

Republicans, though, argue that many of Biden's ideas do not belong in an infrastructure bill. “This is about Democrats' goal of increasing government-controlled health care,” said Rep. Jason Smith, a Missouri Republican. “It doesn't belong in an infrastructure bill. This takeover of government health care, they're just trying to slip it through. They're rewarding friends, donors and allies.”29

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said the president's expansive wish list is dragging down negotiations. “There is potential to come together with the Democrats on a deal if we leave out unrelated provisions like the Green New Deal and so-called climate justice,” he said before meeting Biden at the White House in May.30

Should the federal government rely primarily on fuel taxes to fund transportation infrastructure?

Since the creation of the interstate highway system during the Eisenhower administration, federal money for transportation infrastructure has predominantly come from taxes on diesel fuel and gasoline. But many experts worry that the current 18.4 cents-per-gallon federal fuel tax is not sustainable.

For one thing, it has not kept up with inflation. Congress has not raised the gasoline tax in 27 years — the longest stretch without an increase since the tax was first imposed in 1932. Since the last increase in 1993, at the start of Bill Clinton's presidency, construction costs have increased by 185 percent.31

Long Description

Meanwhile, vehicles have become more efficient, so drivers need to buy less gasoline — and pay less in fuel taxes — for the same amount of wear and tear they put on the roads.

Between 1993 and 2020, inflation and fuel efficiency gains have decreased the buying power of the fuel tax by 72 percent, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. “To make up lost ground, lawmakers would need to increase the rate by more than 46 cents, to 65 cents per gallon,” writes the institute's research director, Carl Davis.32

But Congress appears to have no appetite for such an increase.

And even if it did, it would not address the third major problem with the tax: the need to mitigate climate change by switching from carbon-based fuels such as gasoline and diesel. The Biden administration, environmentalists and even much of the auto industry want to replace gasoline-powered vehicles with electric- or hydrogen-powered ones, which would essentially eliminate the gasoline tax revenues that fund the nation's highways.

The administration has sidestepped that issue for now. The president is proposing to pay for his eight-year infrastructure and jobs plan by raising corporate taxes. If enacted, it would be a clear break from federal policies that have made those who use the nation's transportation networks pay for that infrastructure.

Business groups, though, adamantly oppose raising the corporate tax rate, which was reduced from 35 percent to 21 percent in the Republicans' 2017 tax cut package. Biden wants to raise it to 28 percent, but Republicans oppose the idea.

“We need to have an infrastructure bill as big as we're willing to credibly pay for without going back and undoing the 2017 tax bill,” said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.33

Regardless of whether Biden can get an infrastructure bill passed, Congress must confront the long-term shortcomings of fuel taxes by the end of September, when the law that designates funds for highways and mass transit construction expires. It depends heavily on fuel taxes for its funding.

Many transportation advocates — including those representing state highway departments, transit agencies, toll authorities, railroads and road builders — have recommended that lawmakers replace the fuel tax with a mileage tax — a levy based on how many miles someone drives.

More than a dozen states, including Oregon and California, are testing the mileage tax concept with pilot projects that aim to solve problems associated with it, such as how to keep drivers' data private and how to tax out-of-state drivers.34 While many experts consider a switch to mileage fees inevitable, the need for a new system once seemed far off.

That likelihood seems closer now that several automakers have announced they will switch production to electric vehicles in the near future, says Susan Howard, the program director for transportation finance at the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Those announcements represent a “tipping point” for many transportation officials and advocates, Howard says. “At some point, more than 1 or 2 percent of vehicles … on the road [will be] electric, and when that comes, these folks won't be paying gasoline taxes at all, and they won't be contributing to the Highway Trust Fund,” she says, referring to the account that pays for most of the federal government's spending on roads, highways and transit.

But the idea of a mileage tax is still a fraught issue politically, as Biden's transportation secretary, Pete Buttigieg, discovered in late March, when he said a mileage tax “shows a lot of promise.”

“If we believe in that so-called user-pays principle — the idea that part of how we pay for roads is you pay based on how much you drive — the gas tax used to be the obvious way to do it. It's not anymore,” Buttigieg said. A mileage tax “could be a way to do it.”35

A few days later, however, after his comment caused a controversy, Buttigieg clarified that the Biden administration would not be proposing a mileage tax for its infrastructure bill.

“No, that's not part of the conversation,” he said, adding that the administration did not want to raise the gasoline tax, either.36 Either option could have conflicted with Biden's campaign pledge not to raise taxes on Americans making less than $400,000 a year.

Can a new infrastructure package address historic racial injustices?

On his first day in office, President Biden signed an executive order calling on all federal agencies to advance racial equity in their work.37 His infrastructure plan is in line with that goal. The proposal focuses on many problems prevalent in minority communities, including the need for:

• Replacing all lead pipes for delivering drinking water;

• Extending high-speed internet service to all places where it is currently unavailable;

• Repairing dilapidated public housing;

• Improving public transit;

• Cleaning up polluted industrial sites, and

• Reconnecting communities cut off from nearby neighborhoods by interstate highways or other public infrastructure.38

Kids play basketball at a park in Syracuse, N.Y., near where Interstate-81 slices through a public housing complex on the city's south side. Part of the Biden administration's infrastructure proposal includes removing such highways to reunite communities, many of them in minority neighborhoods. (Getty Images/The Washington Post/Jahi Chikwendiu)

Such programs mark a profound shift in federal policy, according to Rep. Yvette Clarke, a Democrat from New York, and Michael Shank, the communications director for the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance, a Chicago-based global network of cities working to cut greenhouse gas emissions. “One key takeaway from President Joe Biden's infrastructure plan is that it contains many strong illustrations of equity-based planning, putting the needs of underserved and disadvantaged communities at the fore,” they wrote recently. “This is how all federal policy should be fashioned going forward.”39

Yonah Freemark, a senior research associate in metropolitan housing and communities at the Urban Institute think tank, says, “The fact that the proposal really focuses on policy areas that are more likely to benefit people of color as a whole means that there are reasons to be optimistic about the ability of the proposal to actually redress some inequity.”

While states and localities would carry out many of the programs in Biden's infrastructure package, Freemark says that by prioritizing specific goals and programs — such as emphasizing public transit over highway construction or calling for replacing all lead water pipes — Biden can prod state and local governments to achieve those goals.

But there are limits to what the Biden plan can accomplish. The president wants to help places such as Syracuse, N.Y., and New Orleans tear down federal highways that have divided Black neighborhoods. But it would be a lot harder to remove, for instance, New York City's Cross Bronx Expressway, which bisects the South Bronx but carries some 200,000 vehicles a day, Freemark says. One possible solution was advanced recently by Rep. Ritchie Torres, a New York Democrat who represents the South Bronx. He called on the Biden administration to build a roof over the expressway that could be covered with vegetation to create green space and reduce pollution.40

Hirsch, of West Street Recovery in northeast Houston, cautions that well-intentioned laws are not enough. For example, after Hurricane Harvey caused major flooding in Houston in 2017, local voters approved issuing bonds as part of a $5 billion flood control plan. The rules they approved required the use of a “social vulnerability index” to help ensure that projects in disadvantaged areas received higher priority for new protections.41

In March, however, Harris County, which includes Houston, learned that it has a $1.4 billion shortfall in its flood control plan, which relied on state and federal help, much of which has not yet materialized. And the projects in northeastern Houston, among the poorest parts of the city, had the biggest funding gaps. The county has a 27 percent shortfall in the project's funding overall and a 75 percent shortage in two areas in northeast Houston.42

“You have a good law and good leadership and bad results,” Hirsch says. “It takes a big push to have the implementation match the policy.” Such racial equity policies “need to have accountability processes” built into them, he said.

Passing a federal infrastructure bill with a heavy emphasis on racial equity could be tough for Democrats, who have slim majorities in both houses of Congress. Republican lawmakers have largely avoided criticizing the racial equity provisions in Biden's plan, but their own plans have not contained similar measures. In his response to Biden's joint address to Congress in April, Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, the only Black Republican in the Senate, criticized Democrats for how they approach racial equity issues.

“America is not a racist country. It's backwards to fight discrimination with different types of discrimination,” Scott said. “Race is not a political weapon to settle every issue the way one side wants. It's far too important.”43

The administration of President Barack Obama also tried to emphasize equity concerns in transportation programs, but those efforts faced opposition from Republicans who controlled Congress at the time, according to Obama's transportation secretary, Anthony Foxx.

“We worked within the constraints of the authorities we had,” Foxx said recently. He added that with the current surface transportation spending law expiring at the end of September, “there's an opportunity to open an entirely new conversation about how equity plays a role in our transportation system.”44

Go to top

Background

Showing Cracks

Building infrastructure — the physical networks that bring people or things together — is almost always complex. Many levels of government and private companies play significant roles in planning, funding, building and maintaining those physical assets.

The complicated systems for building and maintaining the country's infrastructure are often tied to specific problems that faced the country when that infrastructure was being built. For example, when the federal government wanted the newly invented railroads to expand beyond local lines in the 1850s and 1860s, it authorized land grants for companies that linked distant cities. When it wanted rural Americans to get electricity in the 1930s, it provided loans to rural cooperatives to install their own electrical grids.

“Every time America changes, whether a little bit or a lot, infrastructure lags behind,” wrote Gretchen Bakke in The Grid, a book about the U.S. electrical infrastructure. “The things we build, especially the big things, and the institutions we invent to support these are far more permanent than the ways we choose to live.”45

The Constitution authorized the federal government to establish “post roads” to help speed the delivery of mail. But the relatively weak federal government at the time initially left most of the work of building those roads and bridges to states and local governments. With the invention of the automobile and the growing capacity to travel long distances in short times, cars and trucks could potentially connect people as never before. But to realize that potential, the country needed better roads and a national plan for where the roads would be built.

State governments initially moved faster than the federal government. Oregon became the first state to impose a gasoline tax in 1919, and other states quickly followed. Within 10 years, every state had such a tax, with the revenues usually earmarked for roads.

Early on, Congress had decided to work through the states to improve the nation's roads, passing a law in 1916 providing financial help to build roads that could enable mail delivery. The law required states to create highway departments if they did not already have them. But the country's entry into World War I soon made it nearly impossible to complete those roads, due to difficulty obtaining materials or workers to build them.

Congress passed a second highway bill in 1921 clarifying which kinds of roads the federal government would fund. It led to the first national plan for highways crossing state lines. But Congress did not provide enough money for a truly national network for decades. In fact, when Congress first imposed a federal gasoline tax in 1932, it was to help balance the federal budget during the Great Depression, not to support road construction.

The Federal System

A turning point came in 1956, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower pushed his interstate highway program through Congress. In that law, legislators created the Highway Trust Fund to ensure that gasoline taxes raised for transportation purposes only paid for transportation projects.

Work progresses on an interstate highway being constructed near Rapid City, S.D., in 1958, two years after President Dwight D. Eisenhower pushed a program through Congress to build a nationwide network of highways, financed through gasoline taxes. (Getty Images/The Denver Post/Contributor)

Not all federal gasoline tax increases have been tied to transportation. Over time, though, Congress began to link fuel taxes with infrastructure improvements. Today, nearly all fuel taxes fund transportation projects.

The system that Eisenhower signed into law remains largely intact today. The federal government collects fuel taxes and other road-related levies.46 More than 90 percent of that revenue is distributed to states using formulas Congress writes. Each state is guaranteed to get at least 95 percent of the money its residents pay in federal gasoline taxes.47 Every five or six years, Congress typically passes surface transportation authorization bills, which determine those formulas. Individual members of Congress can also sometimes “earmark” federal funds for specific projects. Congress banned earmarks in 2011 after several scandals, but congressional leaders brought them back this year.48

While the federal government pays for most of the construction and repair of interstates and other federal highways, states own the roads and oversee the work. State governments pay 10 percent of the cost of work done on interstates and 20 percent of the work on other federal highways.49 State governments raise this money, and funds for state roads that are not part of the federal network, from various sources, including their own fuel taxes.

State transportation departments have broad powers to decide how federal money is spent in their states, as long as the projects fit in the categories Congress authorizes. States pick the projects, oversee the planning process, hire the contractors and manage the actual construction work.

Transit agencies also receive a portion of Highway Trust Fund proceeds, which are also distributed based on congressional formulas. Those rules generally require transit agencies to spend the federal money on physical infrastructure improvements, not day-to-day operations.

That arrangement worked through the 1990s, with Congress periodically raising the gasoline tax, until President George W. Bush in 2003 rejected the idea of raising fuel taxes to pass a highway bill.50 Many conservative public officials at the time had pledged not to raise taxes, including fuel taxes.

As a result, a highway bill that Bush signed in 2005 put the Highway Trust Fund on the brink of insolvency. The Congressional Budget Office predicted at the time that the trust fund would run out of money by 2009. The 2005 bill also contained special earmarks for many projects sponsored by individual lawmakers that were later condemned by critics as wasteful or, in a few cases, linked to corruption.51

Public outcry over the deteriorating condition of the nation's road infrastructure grew after an interstate highway bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis collapsed in 2007. Thirteen people died and 145 were injured. Although investigators determined that poor design — not lack of upkeep — caused the collapse, the incident increased public concerns about the tens of thousands of outdated and poorly maintained U.S. bridges.52

Highway departments began focusing on fixing neglected bridges, both on state roads and on federal highways, using either their own or federal maintenance funds. But Congress was still divided over whether to increase fuel taxes or raise any new revenue for transportation.

The I-35W bridge in Minneapolis collapsed during rush hour on Aug. 4, 2007, killing 13 and injuring 145. More than a third of the nation's bridges are considered structurally deficient, according to the Federal Highway Administration. (AFP/Getty Images/Mandel Ngan)

The funding issue came to a head in the fall of 2008. The Highway Trust Fund that had paid for the federal share of those initiatives was about to run out of money. With no new revenues on the table, Congress had two choices: It could start cutting the transportation funds for states or transfer funds from other parts of the federal budget to shore up the fund. Lawmakers chose to transfer money. The first payment was $8 billion, but since then Congress has transferred more than $157 billion.53

With federal funds in flux, states such as Indiana and Virginia began to turn to private investors for loans for major road projects and, in some cases, to take over daily operations of those roads. A wave of such public-private partnerships emerged after Indiana leased its Toll Road in 2006 for $3.8 billion. Private operators of roads in Texas and Indiana later went bankrupt, but the deals were structured so the driving public was not affected. But other factors have prevented such partnerships from becoming more widespread. They usually require heavy volumes of traffic to generate the tolls necessary to pay for the project, limiting them to urban areas. And the tolls themselves can be politically unpopular.54

Meanwhile, big changes were underway in other parts of the nation's infrastructure. The electric power industry, in particular, was adjusting to a new business model that transformed power companies from local monopolies into competitors in vast marketplaces.

Congress opened the door for more competition in the electric power industry when it passed the Energy Policy Act of 1992. It allowed wholesale customers to choose which power provider they bought their electricity from, instead of forcing them to use the local electric utility. The measure also allowed states to further promote competition if they chose.

California was the first state to deregulate its electric power industry — but it paid a heavy price in 2000 and 2001. The law split up two jobs that power companies traditionally had: making electricity and delivering it to customers. So big utilities had to sell their power plants and buy electricity on an open market instead. But Enron and other energy trading companies manipulated the market, making power hard to find during heat waves and forcing utilities to buy electricity from out-of-state companies at sky-high rates. The upheaval led to widespread blackouts, the bankruptcy of the state's largest utility and, eventually, the recall of the state's Democratic governor, Gray Davis.55

In 2003, the biggest blackout in U.S. history left more than 50 million people in eight Northeast U.S. states and Ontario, Canada, without power on a hot August day. The culprit, though, was not rogue traders but cascading failures in the grid's physical infrastructure.56

Obama's Initiatives

When President Obama took office in 2009, the country was in the throes of the Great Recession, at that time the worst economic downturn since the 1930s.

As part of his economic stimulus package, Obama proposed many initiatives to improve or upgrade the U.S. infrastructure. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included $90 million for clean energy initiatives, which supporters say helped invigorate the wind and solar industries.57 It also included money for high-speed rail lines, drinking water infrastructure and “shovel-ready” transportation projects.58

But efforts to modernize the country's infrastructure became some of the most controversial aspects of the stimulus plan. Three Republican governors rejected federal money for passenger rail improvements. Congressional Republicans questioned why the Obama administration loaned $535 million to Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturer that later went bankrupt. Obama himself conceded that “there's no such thing as shovel-ready projects” after many of the stimulus-funded projects took longer than expected to start construction.59

Transportation advocates continued to tout infrastructure as an area ripe for bipartisan cooperation. But political controversy over infrastructure largely continued throughout Obama's tenure, especially after Republicans took control of the House in 2011, and continued after they gained control of the Senate in 2015.

The story was different in state capitals. Many states, regardless of whether they were controlled by Republicans or Democrats, increased state fuel taxes to boost state transportation spending. Thirty-six states have raised their gas taxes since 2010, either by changing their laws or through automatic formulas that periodically adjust the rate. That list included Virginia, which in 2013 passed its first transportation funding in a generation, and California, which in 2017 added $5.2 billion a year for transportation projects. Local governments also regularly increased funding for transportation purposes, with many cities creating or expanding light rail systems.60

A four-year-old in Flint, Mich., gets his blood lead levels tested in 2014 during the city's water crisis, in which high levels of toxic lead leached into tap water. The disaster highlighted how infrastructure failures often fall disproportionately on minority communities. Experts estimate it would cost $750 billion to replace all the nation's lead pipes. (Getty Images/The Washington Post/Brittany Greeson)

The 2014 Flint water crisis highlighted for many Americans how infrastructure failures continue to disproportionately affect minority communities. The water plant in the majority-Black city switched the source of the city's water from Detroit's water system to the Flint River, but neglected to add chemicals to prevent the river water from corroding lead pipes in the city. As a result, toxic lead leeched into the drinking water in Flint homes, causing irreparable brain damage to many of the cities' children. Children's developing brains are especially vulnerable to lead contamination. Residents were forced to rely on bottled water for years as they struggled to get city, state or federal officials to fix the poisoned drinking water situation.

“The people of Flint have been subjected to unprecedented harm and hardship, much of it caused by structural and systemic discrimination and racism that have corroded your city, your institutions and your water pipes, for generations,” the Michigan Civil Rights Commission concluded in 2017.61

This January, eight current or former officials and former Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican, were indicted on 42 criminal counts in connection with the disaster, ranging from perjury to misconduct in office to involuntary manslaughter.62 While Flint homes now have clean water running through their pipes, many residents still distrust the city's water and the officials in charge of delivering it.63

The Obama administration also tried to tackle the problem of increasing greenhouse gas pollution. In 2015, the United States signed onto the Paris Climate Agreement, which set targets for countries to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to climate change.

At home, the Obama administration rolled out new rules curbing carbon dioxide emissions from electric generators, imposed stricter emissions standards for vehicles and required household appliances to use less electricity. But rather than relying on a gridlocked Congress to pass bills formalizing the new rules, Obama tried to accomplish much of his climate agenda through executive orders, which can be withdrawn by his successors. When Republican Donald Trump became president, that is exactly what he did.

Trump's Initiatives

During the 2016 campaign, Trump promised to pass a $1 trillion infrastructure package but gave few details about how he would fund it. Throughout his four-year term, Trump repeatedly brought up the idea, and suggested that he could work out a compromise with Democrats after they took control of the U.S. House in 2019. But congressional Republicans remained opposed to big spending packages and new taxes, and Trump eventually refused to negotiate with congressional Democrats because they were investigating him and his administration. Trump's infrastructure plans never panned out.

The most contentious infrastructure debate of the Trump era, though, was over a long-shot bill proposed by some of Congress' most liberal members.

A group of progressive Democrats, spurred by grassroots activists, proposed a massive spending program called the Green New Deal, designed to update the country's infrastructure and address climate change. The non-binding resolution was a broad outline of goals for the federal government to achieve over a decade, including converting all electric power sources to non-carbon emitting sources, hardening public facilities so they could withstand climate change-related disasters, cleaning up hazardous waste sites and ensuring all U.S. residents have access to clean water.64

“I think what we have laid out here is a very clear moral problem,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat and a chief sponsor of the resolution, said during a House hearing. “If we fail to act or if we delay in acting, we will have blood on our hands.”65

But many Republicans, including Trump, denounced the resolution. Trump called it a “massive government takeover that would destroy our incredible economic gains,” and the Republican-controlled Senate quickly swatted it down.66 In the House, Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., called it perhaps “the most outrageous set of proposals ever presented in the U.S. Congress, and we have an obligation to expose this dangerous agenda for what it is and what it would mean for every American.”67

Go to top

Current Situation

Biden Plan's Prospects

Since taking office in January, President Biden has made his infrastructure bill, the American Jobs Plan, one of his major priorities.

The 25-page outline of his original plan calls for $621 billion for transportation, but, in keeping with his aim to reduce carbon emissions, more funds would be earmarked for public transit than for highways and several provisions encourage the adoption of electric vehicles. The package also calls for $400 billion in tax cuts for companies that produce clean energy and $311 billion to upgrade broadband, electric power grids and water systems.

But Biden also wants to include some spending that is not traditionally included in infrastructure discussions, such as money to update public housing, fix schools, pay for job training and research and to expand home care services.

Biden plans to finance his program by raising various taxes on corporations, particularly companies that try to minimize or avoid their U.S. taxes by keeping assets overseas. Some of the changes would reverse parts of the 2017 tax cut package that Republicans passed when they controlled Congress, something Republicans have said they will not accept. Biden has said he would be open to other ways to finance the package, but he has promised not to raise taxes on households making less than $400,000 a year.

In a private meeting with Capito on June 2, Biden suggested a willingness to accept a compromise involving $1 trillion in new infrastructure spending, financed by a new minimum corporate tax but no increase in the overall business tax rate, The Washington Post reported.

Beth Osborne is a former Obama administration transportation official and now director of Transportation for America, an advocacy group that promotes a safer, more equitable and more accessible transportation system. She points out that Biden has framed his plan in terms of the results he wants to achieve, such as keeping roads in good repair and reducing traffic deaths. That is a markedly different approach than past transportation funding laws, which have increased spending for existing programs and allowed states to decide how to spend the money. But she is skeptical that Biden can make that shift until he provides the full text of the bill he wants passed.

“Every time we have a transportation bill, we say we are going to reduce our backlog and fix our crumbling roads and bridges,” she says. “Then we put money into a program that creates a backlog” by allowing states to build new infrastructure even if they do not maintain their existing networks. “How many times can we do that?” she asks.

Besides opposing an increase in corporate tax rates, Republicans also object to including nontraditional infrastructure in the package. In late April, when a group of Senate Republicans offered their alternative $568 billion infrastructure proposal, they said it would be financed with new fees on electric vehicles, leftover coronavirus stimulus money and contributions from state and local governments. Its sponsor, West Virginia's Capito, the top Republican on the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, described it as “the most robust plan we've put forward ever as Republicans.” The same group of Republicans later increased their offer to $928 billion, which was only $257 billion more than what the federal government already plans to spend.68

Sen. Pat Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican who supports the alternative, said lawmakers should keep a narrower focus than the one Biden has recommended. “While President Biden would like to do all kinds of things that have nothing to do with infrastructure, my view is we can have that discussion at some point in time,” he said. “But what we ought to focus on is that which we seem to have agreement on, which is a significant investment in infrastructure.”69

President Biden unveils a $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan in Pittsburgh on March 31. His proposal calls for modernizing and repairing the nation's crumbling roads, bridges and water systems, as well as expanding broadband internet services and investing in what he calls human capital. (AFP/Getty Images/Jim Watson)

The president, who says he prefers bipartisan support for his proposal, is in a tight spot politically. He would need support from at least 10 Republican senators to defeat a filibuster by opponents, but the more concessions he makes to Republicans, the more he risks alienating liberal Democratic senators. After Biden met with Capito and five other Republican senators at the White House on May 13, both the president and Capito seemed optimistic about the potential for progress on an infrastructure bill this year.

“He was very open to suggestions, as were we. I think it's the beginning of — a good jump-start I think,” Capito later told Fox News. “We promised to come back with another offer that he will react to and counteroffer.” Meanwhile, McConnell has said Republicans could not vote for anything over $800 billion and would not support higher corporate taxes to pay for the package.70

The president wants an infrastructure bill enacted by the end of the summer.

Biden could use a procedural tactic called reconciliation, which would allow his package to pass with support from 50 Democratic senators plus a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Kamala Harris. But some Democrats are uncomfortable with that tactic. Plus, using reconciliation would limit the types of changes Democrats could make with the law. Alternatively, Democrats could split the president's infrastructure proposals into two separate pieces of legislation, which would make it easier to pass provisions dealing with physical infrastructure. But both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have criticized that tactic.

Congress will have to decide how to fund current programs for roads and transit before the highway spending law expires. Some individual lawmakers may have a more vested interest in getting a law passed, now that both the House and Senate have brought back earmarks.71

Beyond Washington

Together, state and local governments spend three out of every four dollars of public funding for transportation and water infrastructure.72 But these governments generally cannot borrow money to pay for day-to-day operations, so, when COVID-19 wreaked havoc with the economy in 2020, they prepared to make deep cuts to transit operations, airport construction and road-building efforts.73

Yet tax revenues bounced back faster than expected in many states, and Congress has passed two COVID-19 relief packages since the 2020 election, helping to shore up the bottom line of states and transit agencies.74 The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act that Biden signed into law in March included $350 billion in direct aid to states and localities, which they can use on water, sewer or broadband infrastructure.

“For many cities and counties, the American Rescue Plan's … state and local funds are not just a $350 billion lifeline; they represent the largest positive fiscal jolt to their budgets in decades,” wrote Brad Whitehead and Joseph Parilla of the Brookings Institution. “Now, a scramble is underway to determine how best to deploy the money.”75

Many governors — including those in Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Vermont and Wisconsin — have said they plan to use some of it to improve broadband access. “High-speed internet today is as fundamental as electricity, heat and water. It's the primary way of connecting with other people, especially in the pandemic,” said Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat.76

Biden, who pushed for moving the country to electric vehicles during his 2020 presidential campaign, has pledged to replace all the federal government's gasoline- and diesel-burning vehicles with zero-emission cars and trucks, particularly those that run on electricity.77

Much of the auto industry has responded positively to Biden's efforts. A week after Biden's inauguration, General Motors announced it will produce only electric vehicles by 2035, and other automakers announced similar goals.78

That would require, in addition to the installation of hundreds of thousands of charging stations, increased power generation and incentives to encourage customers to buy electric vehicles. Much of that work is underway, but it will have to ramp up considerably in the years to come.79

Go to top

Outlook

Post-Pandemic Infrastructure

COVID-19 upended U.S. society, and public- and private-sector leaders are trying to discern what kinds of infrastructure Americans will want after the pandemic recedes. Will they need better internet services to work from home more often? When they do go into the office, will they drive or take public transit?

Such questions are especially difficult for transit agencies, which are at the center of plans to address the country's goals of reducing carbon pollution, because just switching to electric vehicles will not be enough to reach climate goals. Americans will need to drive less or choose new ways to get around, such as bicycling or public transit.80

But many transit agencies were already losing riders before the pandemic hit, for a variety of reasons, including the growing popularity of ride-hailing services and telecommuting, as well as growing auto ownership among lower-income Americans.81

Some advocates of public transportation say those lost riders will return if agencies can improve the frequency and reliability of their services, even if that requires additional federal money to fund day-to-day bus and subway operations. (See Pro/Con.) The federal government normally only allows transit providers to use federal funds for physical infrastructure improvements, but Congress also provided operational subsidies to transit agencies in several COVID-19 rescue packages. Transit agencies also will have to provide more services where demand is highest.

“Buses are getting higher ridership than other modes and, even within that, routes that serve essential workers who are disproportionately Black and brown people tend to have higher ridership than routes that have more of a 9-to-5 office commuter ridership,” says Ben Fried, communications director for TransitCenter, a transit advocacy group in New York City. “Transit agencies will have to be responsive to these changes in ridership. And if they do that well, then they will be better positioned to build ridership to their former levels.”

Depending on its final form, the Biden proposal could move the country in a whole new “green” direction, just as Eisenhower's interstate highway program enabled mass suburbanization. Or Biden's plan could be much more modest.

Smith, the executive director of the civil engineers' association, says the country is at a crossroads. “The need [for an infrastructure bill] has grown. The infrastructure investment gap has grown, and it's only going to grow more if we continue to neglect it,” he says. “But we also believe that, by investing now, we can save more later … not only for the country but also for individual families.”

In Northeast Houston, where residents lost power and water in February's deep freeze, activist Hirsch says the success of a federal infrastructure bill would depend on making sure that local agencies, such as Houston's housing department and the Texas Department of Transportation, respond to the needs of the communities they serve. The same neighborhoods that lost power this year were also flooded by Hurricane Harvey in 2017, and they are fighting the expansion of a freeway that would raze homes and increase pollution in the area, he says.

“Do [the agencies] actually [care] what the community thinks? If they don't, the infrastructure bill will just be giving a lot of money to people who are going to do the same thing they were doing before, which in Texas means building roads that increase flood risk and exacerbate climate change,” he says.

Go to top

Pro/Con

Should the federal government help pay for day-to-day operations at transit agencies?

Pro Paul P. Skoutelas President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association. Written for CQ Researcher, May 2021 Washington has played a vital role in America's transportation policies and funding since the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916 formalized federal-state cooperation. As our country grew, so too did federal support for roads, bridges, waterways, railroads, airports and transit. The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 recognized that moving people and goods efficiently within and among major population centers improves productivity and growth nationwide. As with federal aid for schools, housing, communities and other causes, transportation dollars help to spur, not supplant, other funding. Most investments in public transportation come from state, local and private sources, including passenger fares. A striking lesson emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic: the essential role played by public transit agencies, which stayed open and kept large and small communities functioning when much of the nation was shut down. Now, we have an indispensable responsibility: to advance our nation's economic and social recovery. Public transportation is ready to help in that goal by bringing riders back to jobs, schools, entertainment and a vibrant life. How does the nation benefit from a healthy, modern and efficient public transit network? Transit helps to: Get people out of their cars, which curbs congestion, reduces wasted time and saves money. By efficiently moving large numbers of people, transit increases productivity and cuts costs for parking, insurance and fuel. Fight climate change and air pollution by adopting more efficient vehicles powered by electricity and cleaner, sustainable fuels. Reduce road injuries and deaths, because using public transportation is 10 times safer than traveling in a private car. Make communities more mobile, providing equitable access to opportunities and jobs beyond a local area and helping older residents and people with disabilities to stay active and independent. Drive economic growth. Because four in five transit trips are to a destination where riders earn or spend money, every $1 invested in public transit generates $5 in economic activity. Whether or not you use public transit, everyone benefits. That is why since 2012 voters have approved 78 percent of all local transit ballot initiatives. An April 2021 nationwide poll of transit users and nonusers by The New York Times found nearly 70 percent of respondents support increased federal investment in transit. Addressing the challenges of economic recovery, climate change and racial equity requires the benefits that only public transportation can deliver. Those benefits depend on preserving the historically successful federal, state, local and private funding partnership.

Con Randal O'Toole Senior Fellow, Transportation and Land-use Policies, Cato Institute. Written for CQ Researcher, May 2021 Federal subsidies for urban transit historically have focused on capital costs, but increasingly have paid for operating costs as well. The debate over whether subsidies should go for capital or operating costs, however, is less important than whether transit should be subsidized at all. Federal subsidies have made transit the most inefficient, wasteful form of transportation we have. In 2019, on average, transit agencies spent more than five times as much to move people, per passenger-mile, as private automobiles, and subsidies to transit were a hundred times greater, per passenger-mile, than subsidies to highways. Most transit systems are still based on the same routes laid down more than a century ago, when most urban jobs were downtown and transit brought workers into those urban centers. Today, only 8 percent of urban jobs remain in big-city downtowns, yet most transit routes still focus on those routes and do not work for most travelers. Federal transit subsidies, which began in the 1960s and were quickly followed by state and local subsidies, insulated transit agencies from the need to be efficient or to innovate in response to changing transportation patterns. For transit agencies today, attracting riders is far less important than persuading politicians to keep the subsidies flowing. Most transit subsidies come from taxes that fall more heavily on lower-income people. Yet in 2019 only 5 percent of Americans who earned less than $25,000 a year took transit to work while nearly 7 percent who earned more than $75,000 a year commuted by transit. The 95 percent of low-income people who do not rely on transit disproportionately paid to subsidize transit rides disproportionately taken by high-income people. Nor is transit good for the environment. Transit used more energy, per passenger-mile, than the average car in 2019 and transit systems in all but three or four urban areas emitted more greenhouse gases, per passenger-mile, than the average car. COVID-19 has hastened transit's decline. After the pandemic, more people will work at home, fewer jobs will be in downtowns, and more households will be in low-density areas. All of these trends, which were accelerated by the pandemic, are harmful to transit. Instead of subsidizing transit in the hope of returning it to its glory days of 1920, it's time to end federal subsidies. This will force transit agencies to reinvent themselves to be responsive to rider needs, resulting in better transportation systems.

Go to top

Discussion Questions

Here are some questions to consider regarding infrastructure:

• Many minority neighborhoods in central cities were divided in the 1950s and '60s by highways to serve mostly suburban commuters. How would those neighborhoods be different today if those areas had not been split up?

• Dozens of cities are tearing down these old highways. What should be done with those spaces?

• Do you agree with President Biden that infrastructure projects should include nontraditional items such as aid for home health care workers, job training and expanding green energy sources?

• Do you think that Biden's expansive infrastructure plan will help the economy by creating new jobs and encouraging innovation, or hurt the economy by causing inflation and adding to the national debt?

• The U.S.'s infrastructure is rated 13th among 141 countries by the World Economic Forum. Do you think that the United States should aspire to a higher rating?

• In the past, the United States has relied mostly on fuel taxes to pay for transportation infrastructure, but as the country moves to electric vehicles, that approach is unsustainable. How should transportation infrastructure be funded in the 21st century? A mileage tax on all motorists? A tax on corporations because they benefit substantially from such investments? More money from governments' general funds? Some other method?

Go to top

Go to top

Short Features

Jackson Water Crisis Reveals City-State Rift

The same two consecutive winter storms that knocked out power for millions of Texans in February also had a devastating impact hundreds of miles east, in Jackson, Miss., where thousands of residents went without safe drinking water for more than a month after the storms.

The prolonged outages in Mississippi's capital city, where the population is 82 percent Black, demonstrated the woeful inadequacies of the city's water systems.1 But they also illustrated the stark divide between Jackson's Black population and the state government's white leadership over who bears more of the responsibility for the city's water infrastructure falling into such disrepair: the state or the city. Jackson, a city of about 160,000 people, is led by Democrats, while the state government is controlled by Republicans.

This winter's problems began when the intake screens for untreated water froze, blocking new water from entering the system. At the same time, consumer demand for water increased because people spent more time indoors to avoid the freezing weather. As a result, the municipal water tanks emptied and water pressure dropped to a third of the level needed to push water through the system.2 More than 80 water main breaks and leaks were reported throughout the city.3

“Our system just … basically crashed like a computer, and now we're trying to rebuild it,” said Charles Williams, Jackson's public works director, two weeks after the storms.4

A city worker loads a case of water into a vehicle in Jackson, Miss., on March 6 after two winter storms damaged the city's infrastructure and left residents without access to running water. (Getty Images/Michael M. Santiago)

City agencies eventually managed to fix the immediate problems, but Jackson's leaders worry that a similar crisis will inevitably happen again. Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba said it could cost up to $2 billion to fix Jackson's water systems, which include not just the infrastructure for delivering clean drinking water but also those for sewers and stormwater runoff.5

The mayor has questioned why the state has not helped its largest city with such a staggering infrastructure need. But state leaders have suggested that the city needs to take care of the issue itself, or else every city in Mississippi would expect the same kind of help.

“Jackson has certainly got a lot of attention,” Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, said two weeks after the storm, at a time when Jackson residents still did not have water. “But at the height of the ice storm, Mississippi had 78 water systems that had boil-water notices.”6

The state's lieutenant governor, Delbert Hosemann, a Republican who oversees the state Senate, said “the prime mover needs to be the city itself.”

He contrasted today's situation with the city's approach in the 1990s. “You remember during Kane Ditto's administration, he did repair work on water and sewer. So, what happened since then?” Hosemann asked, referring to Jackson's last white mayor, who left office in 1997.7

Former Jackson Mayor Harvey Johnson Jr., who succeeded Ditto, said his administration spent $200 million on water infrastructure improvements during his 12 years in office.8 But Jackson, like other older cities, also had to do more with less, because the federal government drastically scaled back its investment in local water systems in the late 1980s.9

But the city's current water problems are also linked to the flight of more affluent white families to suburban communities in the Jackson area, which reduces the financial resources available to the city they left.10 When richer residents leave, they pay their water bills to suburban water departments, and their sales taxes typically shift to the suburbs. Thus, as Jackson's population declined, the city had fewer residents to pay for maintaining its water system.

“Jackson's crisis is tied to its inability to proactively invest in infrastructure upgrades,” wrote researchers for the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program. “This inability stems from its ongoing economic and fiscal difficulties — a challenge that many other localities and water utilities face. In addition to a declining population, Jackson's high percentage of low-income residents — in one of the poorest states in the country — limits steady and predictable revenues for public services, including drinking water and wastewater.”11

The water system has also suffered from frequent billing problems. Customers often go months without getting a bill, and then get bills for thousands of dollars. Many of the city's billing problems stem from a contract it had with Siemens, a German technology company that promised to replace the city's water meters and billing system. Jackson sued Siemens and reached an $89.8 million settlement with the company in 2020.12 After paying its lawyers, securing bonds and reimbursing expenses related to the faulty meters, Jackson had about $14 million for sewer repairs and a new billing system.13

This year, state lawmakers passed a law to help the city manage delinquent bills. They also set aside $3 million to help the city with repairs of its water system, significantly less than the $47 million the mayor and city council had sought. Hosemann, the lieutenant governor, said Jackson got the biggest allocation of any city in the state.14

The Republican-led Legislature, however, shot down a proposal from city officials to allow Jackson to add a 1-cent sales tax for water infrastructure.15

“We have been very hesitant to do general sales tax increases for other cities. In fact, we turn them down every year,” said state Rep. Manly Barton, a Republican who leads the committee that oversees local governments. The state has a sales tax, and Jackson already adds another 1-cent tax on top of that. Barton said Jackson leaders should look for other revenue sources. “There's just no appetite [in the Legislature] to do general sales taxes,” he said.16

Hosemann said Jackson would be in line to get some of the $6 billion the state will receive from a COVID-19 relief package President Biden signed in March.17

— Daniel C. Vock

[1] “Quick Facts: Jackson, Mississippi,” U.S. Census Bureau, https://tinyurl.com/3aaup6n5.

[2] Daniel Villareal, “Most Residents in Mississippi's Biggest City Without Water, No Timeline for Repair,” Newsweek, Feb. 19, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/53wunwe5.

[3] “City of Jackson Update for Sunday Evening,” City of Jackson, Feb. 28, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/ytm48f52.

[4] Ny Magee, “Mississippi has gone 2 weeks without safe drinking water since storm,” Yahoo News, March 2, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/uuanup4u.

[5] “Jackson Mayor Demands Help After Month-Long Water Crisis Amid Pandemic, Racism, Broken Infrastructure,” Democracy Now, March 17, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/m297whs.

[6] Nick Judin, “Under The Surface, Part 3: A Water Crisis Amid A Legacy In Decline,” Mississippi Free Press, April 21, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/pxky7uf2.

[7] Nick Judin, “Hosemannn Pins Water Blame on Jackson Leaders Since Last White Mayor; Harvey Johnson Factchecks,” Mississippi Free Press, March 1, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/udmdvxyu.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Judin, “Under The Surface, Part 3,” op. cit.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Andre M. Perry, Joseph W. Kane and Carl Romer, “In Jackson, Miss., a water crisis has revealed the racial costs of legacy infrastructure,” Brookings, March 29, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/pzxhwd2a.

[12] Seyma Bayram, “The Siemens Settlement, Explained,” Jackson Free Press, March 4, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/3jmrfckd.

[13] Anna Wolfe, “‘A profound betrayal of trust’: Why Jackson's water system is broken,” Mississippi Today, March 24, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/smv7n7ze.

[14] Geoff Pender, “Jackson wanted $47 million for water crisis. Lawmakers are providing $3 million,” Mississippi Today, March 30, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/ytmuuper.

[15] Adam Ganucheau, Geoff Pender and Bobby Harrison, “Legislative leaders kill key proposal to address Jackson water crisis,” Mississippi Today, March 24, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/38p6w8yv.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Anthony Warren, “Bill that could help Jackson better manage water collections on its way to governor,” WLBT, March 29, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/2ytfjnyy.

Go to top

Biden Administration Pushing for Robust Offshore Wind Industry

Only seven wind turbines operate offshore in the United States: five off the coast of Rhode Island and two off Virginia. Together, they provide enough electricity for 20,000 homes.18 By 2030, the Biden administration wants enough offshore turbines to power 10 million homes.19

The plans for such a massive expansion are the culmination of years of work, legal battles and technological innovations. Advocates hope developing the untapped source of renewable energy will not only reduce greenhouse gas pollution, which contributes to climate change, but also create a new industry that could revitalize port cities and create manufacturing jobs.

“This is our once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get steel in the water. And we have the expertise to go big,” says Laura Morton, an offshore wind expert for the Clean Power Association, a Washington, D.C.-based industry group that advocates for renewable energy. “We want to make sure that we get this industry started and bring those jobs and investments in the economy so we can get going as we are … wrapping up this significant recession.”

The wind industry has taken off in the United States over the past decade, but most of the turbines have been installed on land. Offshore turbines can produce more energy than their land-based counterparts because ocean winds are stronger and the turbines bigger. The biggest offshore wind turbine, which was recently unveiled by General Electric, will stand 853 feet tall, with blades twice as long as a football field. The new model is almost twice as tall as the average land-based turbine in the United States.20

Other countries, particularly in Northern Europe and Asia, are ahead of the United States in tapping ocean winds. Efforts to build offshore wind farms in the United States met stiff resistance and lawsuits by some residents worried about the turbines' potential impact on fisheries and tourism. Court battles eventually doomed one of the first serious proposals for an offshore wind farm — Cape Wind, off the Massachusetts coast.21 Meanwhile, the federal government, which controls ocean waters three miles or more from the shore, was developing its approval process for offshore wind turbines.

But some state governments are eyeing the economic and environmental benefits offered by offshore wind farms. Several Northeastern and mid-Atlantic states have required utilities to use power from offshore wind farms. Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Virginia are vying for the clean power and local economic boost that the burgeoning industry could potentially generate.22 Any new wind installation will need nearby port facilities and local crews to maintain the turbines. If demand grows enough, manufacturers might even decide to build turbine blades and other components in the United States instead of abroad, mostly in Europe, as is currently the case.

The economic benefits of an offshore wind boom could extend far beyond Atlantic seaports. A Texas shipyard that once built massive offshore platforms for oil drilling is now producing the first U.S.-made platform for installing offshore wind turbines.23

That is exactly the kind of economic benefit the Biden administration hopes will emerge. In March, the administration promised to open more areas off New York for wind farms, with additional areas to come, and federal officials said they would finish reviewing 16 projects awaiting approval. The officials also said they would upgrade port facilities, promote U.S. production of turbine components and offer federal loans to support the offshore wind industry.24

Separately, the administration has given final approval for a $2.8 billion offshore wind farm off Massachusetts.25 The project, called Vineyard Wind, likely will be the nation's first full-scale commercial offshore wind farm.26 The development had been stalled during the Trump administration, which wanted to review concerns from commercial fishermen before signing off on the project. The developers tweaked their plan to address some of those concerns and resubmitted it to the federal government under Biden.

General Electric unveils the world's largest offshore wind turbine blade at a testing facility in Boston in 2019. The Biden administration wants to expand the number of offshore wind farms in the United States. (Getty Images/The Boston Globe/John Tlumacki)

The Biden administration is also encouraging offshore wind farms on the West Coast. Federal officials announced in late May they would open up to 250,000 acres off the California coast for potential wind developments. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, praised the move, but installing turbines in the Pacific Ocean could be more challenging than in the Atlantic, because the ocean floor is deeper near the Pacific coast. California's turbines likely would have to be floating on the ocean surface rather than being anchored to the ocean floor.27

The deployment of offshore wind projects could be slowed, however, by continued opposition from the commercial fishing industry.

“For commercial fishermen, it is extremely worrisome to see the push for a new industry that jeopardizes a sustainable and historic one without rigorous scientific due diligence,” the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance, a commercial fishing group, wrote in January.28

“Currently, there is no balancing of priorities in offshore renewable energy permitting decisions,” the alliance added. “Promises to achieve production targets for offshore wind energy based solely on climate goals will significantly impact other public needs such as food production, tourism and national security.”29

Fishermen worry that the new turbines will disrupt the habitats for fish, squid and other marine animals and that the layout of the windfarms will funnel boats close to each other while at sea. The impact on tourism is unclear. Plans call for turbines to be located 15 miles or more from land, which would make them hard to see from the shore, but some residents worry the windmills would mar their ocean vistas.30

Morton, from The American Clean Power Association, though, cautions against unnecessary delays in the federal approval process for offshore wind projects, especially if government officials want those projects to use U.S.-built components.

“The most important thing here is that we've got to have consistent and predictable leasing and permitting, and regulatory certainty from the government,” she says.

— Daniel C. Vock

[18] Jessica Stump, “CVOW propels emerging US offshore wind market,” Offshore, Dec. 9, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/zd9a4a82; “Our offshore wind projects in the U.S.,” Ørsted, https://tinyurl.com/499fzwym.

[19] “Fact Sheet: Biden Administration Jumpstarts Offshore Wind Energy Projects to Create Jobs,” The White House, March 29, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/yub3p3x2.

[20] David Roberts, “These huge new wind turbines are a marvel. They're also the future,” Vox, May 20, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/reyf6xr7; Stanley Reed, “A Monster Wind Turbine Is Upending an Industry,” The New York Times, Jan. 1, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/437stbm2.

[21] John Chesto, “R.I.P., Cape Wind,” The Boston Globe, Dec. 1, 2017, https://tinyurl.com/pap9mpn3.

[22] John Chesto, “In the offshore wind industry's East Coast arms race, Mass. falls behind New York,” The Boston Globe, Jan. 21, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/thpm8pbn; Benjamin Storrow et al., “Northeast governors need Biden to deliver on offshore wind,” Politico, March 31, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/rwe2n6mc.

[23] Jeffrey Ball, “America's Offshore Wind-Powered Future Begins in a Texas Shipyard,” Texas Monthly, May 2021, https://tinyurl.com/aecj2kem.

[24] “Fact Sheet: Biden Administration Jumpstarts Offshore Wind Energy Projects to Create Jobs,” op. cit.

[25] Miriam Wasser, “Offshore Wind Project South Of Martha's Vineyard Clears Last Regulatory Hurdle,” WBUR, May 11, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/559kfas3.

[26] Jon Chesto and Jeremy C. Fox, “Offshore wind project off Martha's Vineyard nears approval,” The Boston Globe, March 8, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/cp96mxua.

[27] Anna M. Phillips, Rosanna Xia and Sammy Roth, “Biden administration unveils offshore wind plan for California,” Los Angeles Times, May 25, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/k6kmyj29.

[28] “RODA statement on considerations for the Biden Administration from the fishing industry and coastal communities,” Responsible Offshore Development Association, Jan. 27, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/y2f8hs.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Jason Nark, “Some worry N.J. offshore wind project will affect views, fishing, and tourism,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, Feb. 15, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/ykpd2fad.

Go to top

Bibliography

Books

Bakke, Gretchen, The Grid: The Fraying Wires Between Americans and Our Energy Future, Bloomsbury, 2016. A cultural anthropologist from McGill University examines the haphazard evolution and growth of the electric grid in the United States and how aging components and new technologies threaten it.

Clark, Anna, The Poisoned City: Flint's Water and the American Urban Tragedy, Metropolitan Books, 2018. A journalist describes how poverty, racial segregation and other sociological factors exacerbated the effects of the water crisis in Flint, Mich.

Schmitt, Angie, Right of Way: Race, Class, and the Silent Epidemic of Pedestrian Deaths in America, Island Press, 2020. A former journalist for Streetsblog explores how poorly designed infrastructure contributed to the 50 percent growth in pedestrian deaths over the last decade, and why those deaths are too often ignored.

Articles

Ball, Jeffrey, “America's Offshore Wind — Powered Future Begins in a Texas Shipyard,” Texas Monthly, May 2021, https://tinyurl.com/aecj2kem. A journalist who focuses on energy and the environment looks at how major changes in the energy industry are prompting a new focus at a Texas shipyard.

Bluestein, Greg, “A green tech battery plant is transforming a deep-red part of Georgia,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, April 26, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/epah9pxs. A Georgia political reporter examines the political and economic dynamics surrounding a deal to bring a massive battery manufacturing facility to the state that will provide power to Volkswagen and Ford electric vehicles.

Davis, Jeff, “Ten Years of Highway Trust Fund Bankruptcy: Why Did It Happen, and What Have We Learned?” Eno Transportation Weekly, Sept. 5, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/ykbkcnr5. A transportation policy expert describes how the convergence of numerous political factors left Congress and several presidents incapable of fixing a problem they created.

George, Justin, et al., “The pandemic changed the workday, but will transit riders return?” The Washington Post, April 16, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/cd6cwd62. A team of journalists explores the stark changes in ridership patterns in Washington, D.C.'s transit system during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Kruse, Kevin M., “What does a traffic jam in Atlanta have to do with segregation? Quite a lot,” The New York Times, Aug. 14, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/3exa73sy. A Princeton history professor explains how racist policies greatly influenced the development of the interstate highway system.

Mintz, Sam, “DOT halts Texas highway project in test of Biden's promises on race,” Politico, April 1, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/vud4vssc. A reporter looks at the Biden administration's decision to halt construction on a Houston freeway and what that means for the administration's emphasis on racial equity in infrastructure policy.

Plumer, Brad, and Nadja Popovich, “America Has Long Favored Cars Over Trains and Buses. Can Biden Change That?” The New York Times, April 5, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/empb2a3s. Reporters examine the many obstacles that stand in the way of moving the United States to electric vehicles.

Scher, Bill, “Should Biden Seriously Consider a Republican Infrastructure Bill?” Washington Monthly, April 16, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/xue3h4nm. A columnist argues that business principles should prompt President Biden to seriously negotiate with Republicans on an infrastructure bill.

Vock, Daniel C., “Can America's Biggest Ports Go Green?” Governing, May 20, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/5mnfzack. A journalist explores the challenges faced by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach in their bid to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions.

Reports and Studies

“Fact Sheet: The American Jobs Plan,” The White House, March 31, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/26ubj445. The Biden administration outlines in narrative form its plans for a new infrastructure bill and explains why it chose the initiatives it did.

“2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure: A Comprehensive Assessment of America's Infrastructure,” American Society of Civil Engineers, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/s9pawtc2. An engineers' association bestows a C- grade on the nation's highways, bridges and other infrastructure.

Go to top

The Next Step

Biden Plan

Mattingly, Phil, et al., “GOP counters Biden's infrastructure plan with $928 billion offer as President's adviser slams opposition,” CNN, May 27, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/2ud47jxn. Senate Republicans made a $928 billion counteroffer to President Biden's infrastructure plan, as negotiations continued over the proposal and Biden reportedly said he would be open to discussing a $1 trillion price tag.

Sheffey, Ayelet, “58% of voters support passing Biden's $4 trillion infrastructure plan without any Republican votes, poll finds,” Business Insider, May 24, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/hp7fjh72. Almost six in 10 voters support Democrats using a Senate procedure called reconciliation that would require only 50 votes to pass Biden's infrastructure proposal, according to a recent poll, and a majority prefer Biden's plan to a Republican counteroffer.

Tankersley, Jim, “Biden to Propose $6 Trillion Budget to Make U.S. More Competitive,” The New York Times, May 27, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/34ttyh93. President Biden's full budget proposal for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, including infrastructure spending, would push federal spending to the highest sustained level since World War II.

Electric Vehicles

Kaufman, Alexander C., “How California Is Keeping Electric Vehicles Out Of Reach For Apartment-Dwellers,” HuffPost, May 27, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/uhwj9bvj. California requires only 10 percent of the parking spots in garages for multifamily apartment complexes to have the basic circuitry required for an electric vehicle charger, but the state agency that sets building codes may soon raise that requirement to 40 percent.

Newburger, Emma, “Republican infrastructure counteroffer slashes Biden's electric vehicle and climate spending,” CNBC, May 27, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/9tr2n8a6. The most recent GOP counteroffer to President Biden's infrastructure plan includes just $4 billion for electric vehicle infrastructure, a tiny fraction of the $174 billion the president has proposed.

Szymkowski, Sean, “EV tax credits jump to $12,500 in latest legislation — with a catch,” CNET, May 27, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/a6m3nd9f. The Senate Finance Committee approved the Clean Energy for America Act, which would greatly expand electric vehicle tax credits to create incentives for U.S. production of them.

Equity in Infrastructure

Calma, Justine, “Hot summer days are even hotter for Americans of color,” The Verge, May 25, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/49fve2yu. A recent study found that many historically redlined Black neighborhoods were hotter in the summer than other parts of their cities, in part because they were more likely to be near polluting industries and surrounded by more roadways with heat-radiating asphalt.

Popovich, Nadja, Josh Williams and Denise Lu, “Can Removing Highways Fix America's Cities?” The New York Times, May 27, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/3revwbt8. Cities across the United States are developing plans to remove highways that displaced millions of people, many of them Black, in the 20th century.

Trevizo, Perla, Ren Larson and Lexi Churchill, “Texas enabled the worst carbon monoxide poisoning catastrophe in recent U.S. history,” Texas Tribune, April 29, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/n6cp2czb. The February power outage in Texas led to more than 1,400 people, mostly people of color, to seek care for carbon monoxide poisoning as those without heat tried to keep warm indoors using dangerous methods.

Green Infrastructure Initiatives

Avila, Jaie, “Texas stops Chinese billionaire from building wind farm,” News 4 San Antonio, May 26, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/8cm2y86e. Texas lawmakers passed a bill blocking a Chinese company from building a wind farm in Val Verde County.

Davenport, Coral, “Biden Opens California's Coast to Wind Farms,” The New York Times, May 25, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/35dxsn98. The Navy abandoned its opposition to the development of commercial offshore wind farms in two areas off the California coast.

Hulac, Benjamin J., and Joseph Morton, “Progressives push more clean energy infrastructure spending,” CQ Roll Call, May 27, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/7ap3ykp7. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Andy Levin, D-Mich., introduced bills that would provide funds for U.S.-made clean energy products and establish a new Department of Energy division focused on the development of low-carbon technology, proposals they hope will be folded into President Biden's infrastructure package.

Go to top

Contacts

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
444 N. Capitol St., N.W., #249, Washington, DC 20001
202-624-5800
transportation.org
Interest group that represents state transportation directors and sets design standards for highways and equipment.

American Society of Civil Engineers
1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191
800-548-2723
asce.org
Professional organization for civil engineers that publishes an infrastructure report card every four years and advocates for increased infrastructure spending.

American Water Works Association
6666 W. Quincy Ave., Denver, CO 80235
303-794-7711
awwa.org
Trade group for the water industry, including drinking water and wastewater utilities, vendors, researchers and environmentalists.

Eno Center for Transportation
710 Rhode Island Ave., N.W., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20001
202-879-4700
enotrans.org
Think tank that researches all modes of transportation.

National Association of City Transportation Officials
120 Park Ave., 23rd Floor, New York, NY 10017
929-276-2286
nacto.org
Organization of urban transportation professionals that emphasizes the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users in street design.

U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E., Washington, DC 20590
855-368-4200
transportation.gov
Federal department responsible for regulating, planning and funding transportation efforts.

Go to top

Footnotes

[1] “Texas power outages: Nearly half the state experiencing water disruptions as power grid operator says it's making progress,” The Texas Tribune, Feb. 18, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/7xzazbcp; Zach Despart, Alejandro Serrano and Stephanie Lamm, “Analysis reveals nearly 200 died in Texas cold storm and blackouts, almost double the official count,” Houston Chronicle, updated April 2, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/3zb7fm4x.

[2] Christina Maxouris, “Here's how a week of frigid weather and catastrophe unfolded in Texas,” CNN, Feb. 21, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/drz33hpn.

[3] “Report on Outages and Curtailments During the Southwest Cold Weather Event of February 1-5, 2011: Causes and Recommendations,” Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and North American Electric Reliability Corporation, August 2011, https://tinyurl.com/53peu489.

[4] Susan F. Tierney, “Testimony of Susan F. Tierney, Ph.D.,” House Science, Space and Technology Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, March 18, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/4mr6b38y.

[5] J. P. Carvallo et al., “Frozen Out in Texas: Blackouts and Inequity,” The Rockefeller Foundation, April 14, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/y8denwau.

[6] “Fact Sheet: The American Jobs Plan,” The White House, March 31, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/26ubj445.

[7] Joe Biden, “Remarks by President Biden on the American Jobs Plan,” The White House, March 31, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/3nrj9nhf.

[8] Sahil Kapur, Leigh Ann Caldwell and Julie Tsirkin, “‘A big divide’: Biden-GOP infrastructure talks sputter as Democrats ponder going it alone,” NBC News, May 25, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/uvjhubky.

[9] Klaus Schwab, “The Global Competitiveness Report 2019,” World Economic Forum, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/e98kawv7.

[10] “2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure: A Comprehensive Assessment of America's Infrastructure,” American Society of Civil Engineers, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/s9pawtc2.

[11] “Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance, 23rd Edition,” Federal Highway Administration, Oct. 22, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/423p35jy.

[12] “2021 Bridge Conditions Report,” American Road and Transportation Builders Association, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/2e7jac9p.

[13] “Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment, Sixth Report to Congress,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 2018, https://tinyurl.com/up3pete2.

[14] Adam B. Smith, “2020 U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in historical context,” National Centers for Environmental Information, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Jan. 8, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/7ruf6b5m; Bob Henson, “Iowa derecho in August was most costly thunderstorm disaster in U.S. history,” Capital Weather Gang, The Washington Post, Oct. 17, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/sj6kdp9f.

[15] Nathan Bomey, “Honda to phase out gas cars, aiming for 100% electric vehicles in North America by 2040,” USA Today, April 23, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/fdtyzw74.

[16] John Yang and Frank Carlson, “Millions of students with limited broadband access at risk of falling behind amid COVID-19,” PBS NewsHour, Feb. 25, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/7jknx6xz.

[17] Daniel C. Vock, “Transit in Crisis,” Planning, December 2020, https://tinyurl.com/knyxks7y.

[18] Camila Domonoske, “‘Tragic’: Driving Was Down In 2020, But Traffic Fatality Rates Surged,” NPR, March 5, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/m5u9n4mk.

[19] Ian Duncan, “As Biden shifts infrastructure focus to climate and racial justice, cities and states alter pitches for federal money,” The Washington Post, April 15, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/av733p2u.

[20] “NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll: Biden and Infrastructure Tables April 2021,” Maris Poll, April 2021, https://tinyurl.com/yr67fh4n.

[21] “Fact Sheet: The American Jobs Plan,” op. cit.

[22] Ledyard King, “Republicans tell Buttigieg that Biden's infrastructure bill should focus on roads, rail, ports — not climate or social justice,” USA Today, March 25, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/3j7h4ajt.

[23] Shelley Moore Capito, Twitter, April 22, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/yn3d3kfs.

[24] Jeff Stein and Tyler Pager, “White House prepares massive infrastructure bill with universal pre-K, free community college, climate measures,” The Washington Post, March 22, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/yd26zp4a; “Fact Sheet: The American Families Plan,” The White House, April 28, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/t2j66zmk.

[25] Jen Psaki, “Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki, April 5, 2021,” The White House, April 5, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/nf9t3vta.

[26] Kara Voght, “Plains, Trains, and Working Women,” Mother Jones, April 16, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/s9ztdvn5.

[27] Anthony P. Carnevale and Nicole Smith, “15 Million Infrastructure Jobs: An Economic Shot in the Arm to the COVID-19 Recession,” Center on Education and the Workforce, Georgetown University, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/4v2yv5ks.

[28] Alisa Chang et al., “Women Are Leading Biden's Economic Recovery Plan For The Country And Other Women,” All Things Considered, NPR, April 9, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/96nrbcmp.

[29] Stephanie Armour, “Biden Infrastructure Plan Would Fund Shift Toward Home Healthcare for Seniors,” The Wall Street Journal, April 12, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/4hwbeyfw.

[30] Marisa Schultz, “GOP senators to meet with Biden, who's looking for deal on massive spending bill,” Fox News, May 8, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/h3vawsc3.

[31] Carl Davis, “It's Been 10,000 Days Since the Federal Government Raised the Gas Tax,” Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy, Feb. 12, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/3t7bawbh.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Jim Tankersley, Ben Casselman and Emily Cochrane, “Voters Like Biden Infrastructure Plan; G.O.P. Still Sees an Opening on Taxes,” The New York Times, April 15, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/e9s7sh4x.

[34] Daniel C. Vock, “With Gas Taxes in Peril, More States Study Alternatives,” Governing, Jan. 12, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/2wvyubmd.

[35] Thomas Franck, “Vehicle mileage tax could be on the table in infrastructure talks, Buttigieg says,” CNBC, March 26, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/yhdvy2c6.

[36] Caroline Kelly, “Buttigieg says no gas or mileage tax in Biden's infrastructure plan,” CNN, March 29, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/6jev9r3x.

[37] “Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” The White House, Jan. 20, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/prk7wr4x.

[38] “Fact Sheet: The American Jobs Plan,” op. cit.

[39] Yvette D. Clarke and Michael Shank, “Our Infrastructure Is Racist. Biden's Plan Seeks Justice,” Newsweek, April 12, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/au657k96.

[40] Tony Aiello, “Rep. Ritchie Torres, Activists Propose Capping The Cross Bronx Expressway, Creating Green Space On Top,” CBS New York, April 23, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/jzrkbj5w.

[41] Holly Hansen, “Harris County Faces Possible $1.4 Billion Shortfall for Voter-Approved Flood Mitigation Projects,” The Texan, March 10, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/yw4y85kr.

[42] Shawn Arrajj, “More than 3 years after Hurricane Harvey, several east Harris County watersheds remain behind on flood-control funding,” Community Impact Newspaper, March 9, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/6wcbj6xr.

[43] Tim Scott, “Republican Rebuttal to Biden's Speech: Tim Scott's Full Transcript,” The New York Times, April 29, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/rszjzvt2.

[44] Lillianna Byington, “Buttigieg Definition of Equity Draws Line on Infrastructure Push,” Bloomberg Government, March 8, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/47jvnpkw.

[45] Gretchen Bakke, The Grid: The Fraying Wires Between Americans and Our Energy Future (2016), p. 22.

[46] “Federal Highway-User Fees, as of 2018,” Office of Highway Policy Information, Federal Highway Administration, February 2020, https://tinyurl.com/kzun8zxn.

[47] Robert S. Kirk, “The Highway Funding Formula: History and Current Status,” Congressional Research Service, May 20, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/59bkw2su.

[48] Paul Kane, Marianna Sotomayor and Tony Romm, “Congress revives earmarks in hopes of bipartisan deals on infrastructure, budgets,” The Washington Post, March 21, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/x3rw9pc.

[49] Robert S. Kirk, “Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP): In Brief,” Congressional Research Service, March 1, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/5epcd47v.

[50] Jeff Davis, “Ten Years of Highway Trust Fund Bankruptcy: Why Did It Happen, and What Have We Learned?” Eno Center for Transportation, updated Sept. 5, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/ykbkcnr5.

[51] Ibid.

[52] David Schaper, “10 Years After Bridge Collapse, America Is Still Crumbling,” All Things Considered, NPR, Aug. 1, 2017, https://tinyurl.com/2avpn2u4.

[53] The Congressional Research Service reported that there had been $143.6 billion through May 2020, but Congress authorized the transfer of another $13.6 billion later that year. See Robert S. Kirk and William J. Mallet, “Funding and Financing Highways and Public Transportation,” Congressional Research Service, May 11, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/zwdve5a3; “CR Secures Federal Funding, Extends FAST Act For One Year,” AASHTO Journal, Oct. 2, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/yaxrb98t.

[54] Daniel C. Vock, “The Four-Letter Word Changing Daily Commutes,” Governing, March 22, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/376ppw8e.

[55] Dave Kasler and Maria Heeter, “California avoided rolling blackouts for two decades. What went wrong on the grid?” The Sacramento Bee, Aug. 17, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/fye9m5a7.

[56] Bryan Walsh, “10 Years After the Great Blackout, the Grid Is Stronger — but Vulnerable to Extreme Weather,” Time, Aug. 13, 2013, https://tinyurl.com/vns34czj.

[57] Sammy Roth, “Should we spend billions on clean energy? It worked during the last crisis,” Los Angeles Times, April 10, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/hkd7ux2x.

[58] Farhana Hossain et al., “The Stimulus Plan: How to Spend $787 Billion,” The New York Times, Jan. 5, 2017, https://tinyurl.com/kermju9y.

[59] Chris Good, “The Solyndra Scandal: What It Is and Why It Matters,” The Atlantic, Sept. 15, 2011, https://tinyurl.com/cvnvat27; Peter Baker, “Education of a President,” The New York Times Magazine, Oct. 12, 2010, https://tinyurl.com/d4wpj5uu.

[60] Carl Davis, “How Long Has It Been Since Your State Raised Its Gas Tax?” Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, March 5, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/5327zrtu; Frederick Kunkle and Laura Vozzella, “Virginia lawmakers approve sweeping transportation plan,” The Washington Post, Feb. 23, 2013, https://tinyurl.com/bnnhr8k3; and Patrick McGreevy, “Gov. Brown signs bill raising gas tax and vehicle fees by $5.2 billion annually for road and bridge repairs,” Los Angeles Times, April 28, 2017, https://tinyurl.com/54c3ua73.

[61] “The Flint Water Crisis: Systemic Racism Through the Lens of Flint,” Michigan Civil Rights Commission, Feb. 17, 2017, https://tinyurl.com/dwej4zpn.

[62] “Nine Indicted on Criminal Charges in Flint Water Crisis Investigation,” Michigan.gov, Jan. 14, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/s555cwwp; Brakkton Booker, “Ex-Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder And 8 Others Criminally Charged in Flint Water Crisis,” NPR, Jan. 14, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/u7nukdr5.

[63] Derek Robertson, “Flint Has Clean Water Now. Why Won't People Drink It?” Politico, Dec. 23, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/3xn6jbks.

[64] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, “H.Res.109 — Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal,” 116th Congress, https://tinyurl.com/nwab564.

[65] Ledyard King, “AOC to Republicans: Stop fixating on Green New Deal and read it,” USA Today, April 9, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/35fr2p7t.

[66] Donald Trump, “President Trump blasts ‘Green New Deal,’” The Associated Press, Feb. 12, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/jjscr4hf.

[67] “RSC fights socialist agenda in Congress, chairman introduces response resolution to Green New Deal,” Republican Study Committee, May 22, 2019, https://tinyurl.com/4s3uf2am.

[68] “The Republican Roadmap,” Senate Republicans, April 22, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/ynvn6dvs; “Capito, Wicker, Toomey, Crapo, Barrasso Unveil Framework to Improve Nation's Infrastructure,” YouTube, April 22, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/zkuemcna; and Kelsey Snell, “Senate Republicans Release $928 Billion Infrastructure Counteroffer,” NPR, May 27, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/zfmzkfxp.

[69] Ibid.

[70] Allison Pecorin, “Republicans optimistic they can strike a deal on infrastructure,” Good Morning America, May 14, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/etzfx8vk.

[71] Melanie Zanona and Caitlin Emma, “House GOP votes to embrace the return of earmarks,” Politico, March 17, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/2z6se5fs.

[72] “State and Local Infrastructure Spending: A Closer Look,” Peter G. Peterson Foundation, June 17, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/jvnzbru2.

[73] Katherine Shaver, “Pandemic-related budget cuts leave travelers with rough roads, outdated airports and fewer transit options,” The Washington Post, Oct. 3, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/8bzxu2ap.

[74] Lucy Dadayan, “State Tax and Economic Review, 2020 Quarter 3,” Tax Policy Center, March 29, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/es2nkbvj; Laura Schultz, “The American Rescue Plan Act: State and Local Funding Breakdown,” Rockefeller Institute of Government, March 24, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/v6npe9ep.

[75] Brad Whitehead and Joseph Parilla, “How should local leaders use their American Rescue Plan funding?” Brookings Institution, March 23, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/e9ccyncm.

[76] Joshua Claussen, “Governor Beshear Signs Bill Related To American Rescue Plan Act,” WKDZ, April 10, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/w7ym5bzk; Connor Clement, “Gov. Mills, legislative leaders unveil broadband expansion plan,” WABI, April 26, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/9ts5d5z6; Jacob Fenston, “Maryland To Spend Federal Stimulus On Unemployment, Education, And Broadband Access,” DCist, March 31, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/536msafm; Molly Beck and Sophie Carson, “Gov. Tony Evers announces he'll direct $2.5 billion in federal relief money to economic recovery in Wisconsin,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 29, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/24z49bw2; and Calvin Cutler, “Scott administration releases plan to spend billion dollar relief package,” WCAX, April 6, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/p4nemm23.

[77] Sarah Kaplan, “Biden wants an all-electric federal fleet. The question is: How will he achieve it?” The Washington Post, Jan. 28, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/3ekknr6n; Paul A. Eisenstein, “What Biden means for the auto industry, from dirty jobs to clean air,” NBC News, Nov. 16, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/ah8z9wr9.

[78] David Shepardson, “GM aims to end sale of gasoline, diesel-powered cars, SUVs, light trucks by 2035,” Reuters, Jan. 28, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/8a7ucc68; Nathan Bomey, “Honda to phase out gas cars, aiming for 100% electric vehicles in North America by 2040,” USA Today, April 23, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/fdtyzw74.

[79] Tom Krisher, “Biden aims to juice EV sales, but would his plan work?” The Associated Press, April 1, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/yk96m95s.

[80] Alissa Walker, “When electric isn't good enough,” Curbed, Oct. 24, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/h7h6wv37; Alissa Walker, “California's Ban on Gas Cars Could Go Nationwide — But Still Doesn't Go Far Enough,” Curbed, Nov. 9, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/8emx5938.

[81] Daniel C. Vock, “Why Transit Ridership Is Falling (Hint: It's Not Just Uber),” Governing, Jan. 31, 2018, https://tinyurl.com/safz766c.

Go to top

About the Author

Daniel C. Vock is a freelance reporter. He has covered state and local governments for nearly two decades, with an emphasis on transportation and infrastructure since 2010.

Go to top