Skip to main content

Tag: public-private partnership

Webinar recap: What is asset recycling?

Catch up with our webinar on Asset Recycling: An Alternative Approach to P3s with the full recording of the presentation.

In light of the current administration’s intense focus on public-private partnerships (P3s), last week we discussed a specific type of P3 known as asset recycling, the practice of selling or leasing existing, publicly-owned infrastructure and using the proceeds to pay for building or maintaining other infrastructure.

Along with T4America expert Beth Osborne, Robert Puentes, President and CEO of the Eno Center for Transportation, discussed the strengths, weaknesses and potential pitfalls of this approach for transportation, and shared three specific case studies from Australia, Virginia, and Indiana.

View the full session below.

Is your organization a Transportation for America member?  Transportation for America is dedicated to building strong coalitions and delivering policy wins, funding opportunities, and more to our members. Proudly supporting public entities, businesses, non-profit organizations, and universities, our members receive exclusive transportation policy information and a host of other benefits. Contact us about joining today. 

T4A members can read the full summary on asset recycling here. (You may need to log in first.)

Learn about asset recycling, a financing approach for infrastructure

With the current administration’s intense focus on public-private partnerships and ways to bring more private sector dollars into building transportation infrastructure, join us on August 16th for a discussion of a specific form of public-private partnership (P3) known as asset recycling. 

Asset recycling is the practice of selling or leasing existing, publicly-owned infrastructure and using the proceeds to pay for building or maintaining other infrastructure. While we like to point out that financing is not a replacement for direct federal or state investment infrastructure, it’s clear that the current administration and Congress are both eager to encourage more private dollars to flow into infrastructure investment and financing somehow.

Join us for this short webinar at 2 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, August 16th where we’ll discuss the strengths, weaknesses and potential pitfalls of this approach for transportation through three case studies from Australia, Virginia, and Chicago. We’ll consider some key questions, like whether this approach is realistic for rural communities and the ways it may or may not generate revenue as compared to more conventional public private partnerships.

REGISTER HERE

For T4America’s members, we’ve produced a short memo explaining this topic in more detail, which you can find below if you are logged in.

[member_content]

Click to read: Asset Recycling – an Alternative Approach to P3s

[/member_content]

Kerry-Hutchison-Warner infrastructure bank would leverage private investment for revenue-generating projects

This month, a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators introduced a variation of the national infrastructure bank touted by President Obama.

The BUILD Act is sponsored by Senator John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee from Massachusetts; Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison; and Virginia Democrat Mark Warner, a former governor with a history of prioritizing transportation infrastructure.

The infrastructure bank would start out with $10 billion, with the goal of generating private investment to match the federal commitment. Leveraging private capital is a recurring theme in discussions about transportation finance and a notable point of agreement between President Obama and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica.

While the plan resembles what the President had proposed, the Kerry-Hutchison-Warner bill would only include loans, not grants. Only revenue-generating projects would be funded, a concession Kerry has said is necessary due to the current political appetite for less domestic spending. The bank would operate independently of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

In an enthusiastic endorsement of the proposal, the New York Times editorialized that the bank would allow officials with limited resources to pursue needed repairs.

By providing low-cost capital to states, cities and authorities, the bank would help these strapped governments kick-start projects that are now unaffordable, while attracting investments from pension and private-equity funds that are looking for stable money-generating ventures in which to invest.

The Times also put the proposal into a broader context, citing the very real possibility of future tragedy absent the proper maintenance, and the misplaced priorities of tax cuts over investment.

…already conservatives are railing against what some have called a “boondoggle,” a phrase used to demonize virtually any public investment. What will these opponents tell voters when the dams break and the bridges fall? Before more lives are lost, lawmakers should ask themselves whether they used their public office only to slash spending (and taxes for the wealthy), or to spend money wisely.

A recent Boston Globe op-ed authored by former Massachusetts homeland security adviser Juliette Kayyem also made a strong case for the bank, and Streetsblog covered the bill’s release here.

Photo courtesy of the Center for American Progress.

More infrastructure investment will create jobs, boost economy, according to Treasury Sec. Geithner

U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner hammered on the job-creation and economy-boosting effects of the Obama administration’s plan for infrastructure investment in a blog post on the department’s website.

Writing the same day Vice President Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood were in Philadelphia promoting a $53 billion, 6-year passenger rail package, Geithner argued that investing in our nation’s roads, bridges, rail and transit systems creates “both immediate and long-term economic benefits.”

Treasury Department analysis reveals an unemployment rate among American workers building infrastructure at 15 percent, significantly higher than the national average. Investing in infrastructure would create jobs in construction, manufacturing and retail trade, all sectors hard hit by the economic downturn, and nine out of ten jobs created would pay middle-class wages.

Geithner emphasized the administration’s commitment to spending federal dollars in a targeted and fiscally responsible way, writing: “our strategy is designed to make crucial investments in infrastructure while bringing our deficits down to sustainable levels.”

Simply increasing spending levels is unacceptable, Geither wrote, adding “we must also reform the ways in which we invest.” He continued:

Not all infrastructure investments are good investments, and too often we have seen transportation projects exemplify the worst of Washington – the bridges to nowhere that rightly make American taxpayers cringe. The President’s Budget recognizes this and will make some difficult choices, proposing significant spending cuts, including to some programs we would preserve in better times.

President Obama’s plan includes a National Infrastructure Bank, which would “select projects on the basis of rigorous analysis,” Geithner explained. The Bank would evaluate and fund projects that generate the best return on investment, leverage private capital to do it and promote increased transportation options along the way. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman John Mica, a key player in Congress, has cited securing private capital for projects as a key priority for federal transportation spending.

Infrastructure investment benefits all Americans, even in ways we do not always think about. Upgrades and additions to the New York City subway system allow millions to “get to work faster, increasing their productivity and quality of life by decreasing the amount of time lost to commuting,” Geithner notes. But it also means that “the far-away Kawasaki plant in Lincoln, Nebraska that manufactures the subway cars will increase production, putting Nebraskans to work.”

You can read Secretary Geithner’s entire post here.

Photo: Washington Post

Debate panelists split over buses, broader impact of transit investments

Albuquerque1 Originally uploaded by Transportation for America
The new Rail Runner commuter rail service in New Mexico has been hugely popular, drawing new riders and luring former drivers to the service.

Monday’s online debate on conservatives and public transportation was billed as a back-and-forth on why the ideological right should embrace public transportation. While differences persisted between our conservative and libertarian panelists about the impact of transit investments, another schism developed over how big a role buses should play.

Monday’s debate hosted by Transportation for America centered around the book Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation, written by conservatives William Lind and the late Paul Weyrich.

Lind used his opening remarks to summarize the book and refute the oft-repeated right-wing argument that public transportation requires government subsidies while automobiles and the roads required to support them are somehow a free-market outcome.

“In fact, the dominance of the automobile is a product of massive government intervention in the marketplace,” Lind said, citing decades of federal support for the interstate highway system as streetcars remained privately operated — resulting in crushingly unfair competition. “Conservatives above all people should know what happens when you subsidize one competitor and tax the other.”

“You’re either investing in (both highways and transit) or subsidizing both,” agreed panelist John Robert Smith, president and CEO of Reconnecting America and former mayor of Meridian, Mississippi. “You can’t have it both ways.”

Sam Staley, director of urban and land use policy at the libertarian Reason Foundation, was the designated mass transit critic of the debate, which he conceded was “probably accurate” but in need of further clarification. Staley is skeptical about the ability of transit to drive economic development or result in major lifestyle changes.

“I definitely think that transit has an important role to play,” Staley said, “but I think we need to be paying a lot more attention to the conditions under which transit works and when it doesn’t.”

Staley cited the Washington D.C. Metro’s Orange Line, saying transit has succeeded in dense, developed areas like Ballston in Northern Virginia but is less effective when those conditions are missing in places like New Carrollton, on the Maryland side of the District. (Didn’t the changes along the Orange line in Virginia come about largely due to that transit investment?)

Despite his misgivings about mass transit in general, Staley found himself in the unlikely position of defending buses from Lind’s attacks. Lind argued most Americans “don’t like riding buses” and that only trolleys or streetcars would persuade choice-riders to give up their cars, to which Staley responded: “If we discount buses, we’re really doing a disservice to transit generally.”

The final panelist, American Public Transportation Association (APTA) president Bill Millar, also defended buses, saying the industry is rapidly adopting new technologies like bus rapid transit and dedicated lanes, which will appeal to drivers.

Panelists answered a number of interesting questions from listeners on topics such as public-private partnerships, rural transit needs and winning over anti-tax conservatives. Overall, despite differences over the role of buses and transit’s ability to influence broader change, panelists agreed on the general importance of public transportation and the need to make practical decisions not rooted in partisanship.

Smith put it well: “As mayor, I never found a pothole or a railroad crossing that identified as a Democrat or a Republican.”

If you missed the webinar or want to listen again, you can do that with any of the links below, or on the webinars page: