After months of build-up, the Trump administration released its outline for "rebuilding infrastructure in America" to Congress on Feb. 12, 2018.
"To help build a better future for all Americans," the proposal says, "I ask the Congress to act soon on an infrastructure bill that will: stimulate at least $1.5 trillion in new investment over the next 10 years, shorten the process for approving projects to 2 years or less, address unmet rural infrastructure needs, empower State and local authorities, and train the American workforce of the future."
The proposal has uncertain prospects in Congress, which has ultimate say in how the government spends its money. Aside from that, what President Donald Trump is asking for falls short of the investment he promised on the campaign trail.
His $1.5 trillion request may seem big, but it is undercut by the actual amount of federal money pledged under the proposal — only $200 billion (potentially offset by cuts elsewhere).
This breaks down to:
• $100 billion for an "incentives program" for state and local projects. However, these federal incentive grants "could not exceed 20 percent of new revenue," meaning the split would be 80 percent paid by states or localities and 20 percent paid by the federal government. That's the opposite for the current standard for highways. Today, the split is 80 percent by the federal government and 20 percent by the state or locality. It's also less than the current 50-50 split for transit projects.
• $50 billion for a "rural infrastructure program." The proposal says that "funding under this program would be awarded on a competitive basis to projects that are likely to be commercially viable, but that possess unique technical and risk characteristics that otherwise deter private sector investment."
• $20 billion for a "transformative projects program." This would fund and provide technical assistance for "bold, innovative, and transformative infrastructure projects" that "are capable of generating revenue, would provide net public benefits, and would have a significant positive impact on the nation, a region, state, or metropolitan area."
• $20 billion to expand "existing credit programs." The proposal says because these credit programs address a broader range of infrastructure needs, they give "state and local governments increased opportunity to finance large-scale infrastructure projects under terms that are more advantageous than in the financial market."
• $10 billion to finance finance real-estate acquisition for the federal government. These outlays would be repaid by the agencies making the acquisition.
Grand total: $200 billion.
So did this advance the president's campaign promise to "invest $550 billion in infrastructure"?
Beyond the long legislative road ahead, a lot depends on the definition of "investment" in the promise's reference to $550 billion.
Experts say the relevant figure here is not the administration's top-line figure of $1.5 trillion but rather the $200 billion in hard federal dollars that the proposal puts on the table. And that number falls short of the $550 billion Trump cited on the campaign trail.
"Calling it new investment is disingenuous at best," said Kevin Heaslip, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech.
Heaslip added that the switch in the percentage of funding footed by the federal government will be a likely deal-breaker.
"If higher percentages of capital could be attracted for many projects, the formula would have been changed long before this," Heaslip said. "If I were a private entity getting one dollar for four, I'm not sure I'd find that to be a good lure."
While the White House's proposal has moved his infrastructure plan from the internal discussion phase to a paper document, the actual investment in federal dollars doesn't reach half of the amount Trump cited on the campaign trail. And the proposal released by the White House faces an uncertain fate in Congress. For now, we rate this promise Stalled.