There are different schools of thought when it comes to addressing a new infrastructure bill

While it is still very much in the early innings of the Biden Administration, it is fair to say that there are certain aspects of its agenda that are going to be front and center in a shorter time period than others.

One of those aspects, no doubt, is infrastructure and for good reason. Perhaps the main one being that while it is always viewed in the context its long overdue, and badly needed, upgrades being viewed as “mandatory” and “imperative,” we are way past the myriad talking points phase of getting something done and firmly into “what are we doing here” phase.

That comes with more than a few reasons, and we are not going to focus on beating up on those no longer in power to get something done, which really did not occur when they were given the opportunity, for the most part. And looking back, in this case, does not really move the needle, as what is needed is a clear focus on next steps, in terms of the U.S. plan for infrastructure. Time is of the essence, in this case, too, as the current long-term surface transportation authorization, the FAST Act, is set to expire at the end of September.

That was made very clear in a recent Wall Street Journal report, which observed that Washington, D.C.-based transportation groups are highlighting the need for more attention to be made to highways and ports, as well as how China is, and has been, making major inroads on the transportation front, which give it a leg up on the U.S.

The WSJ report also touched on how the Biden Administration is looking ahead to a second legislative package geared towards the economic recovery, which the White House has indicated will have a heavy infrastructure component, in addition to other things like job creation and broadband, among other initiatives.

While it is too early to assess what the infrastructure-related aspects will look like, things are expected to move quickly in the coming weeks, with a lot of heavy lifting expected from various camps.

That heavy lifting will include things like, for example, the ubiquitous question of how a new long-term bill will be funded?; the timing of a new bill?, and, of course, will it receive the support it truly needs from both sides of the aisle.

In a recent conversation I had with Randy Mullett, executive director of Americans for Modern Transportation, and founder of Mullett Strategies, Mullett explained that the current state of transportation infrastructure, at both the state and federal level, is that the lines are getting blurred.

“We are expanding the definition of infrastructure under the Covid relief packages, which have included freight and surface transportation mobility, to include electrical grid, water systems and internet [and broadband] access,” he said. “While all of those are important, it changes the way we think about infrastructure for our roads and bridges and causes us to then have competing interests that we did not really have before for transportation and infrastructure money.”

And while there is a theme of optimism in regards over the prospects of a new long-term bill, Mullet cautioned that it is likely wise to pump the brakes on that.

“My personal opinion is that the chances of a traditional, long-term reauthorization bill are not good right now,” he said. “We have this huge bucket of money that is going out as Covid relief/stimulus money, and a lot of that is going to transit systems and specific shovel-ready type things and also cities and states that normally depend on a federal match out of the FHWA to get some of their projects done. I think that takes a lot of air out of the balloon, as far as the pressure goes to actually make a transportation and infrastructure bill a really high priority. I also think they are going to struggle a bit with what does an infrastructure bill look like and if things are structured right in Congress to make that happen, if our funding mechanisms are correct, and if our allocations (or federal shares) are correct. I think all of those are going to ball together to slow down the process, because most of the money is going to go out under these different things.”

Even with those challenges, Mullett said that there is a big desire to get an infrastructure bill done, with a lot of effort being put towards it, adding that it does not represented a futile effort or a waste of time. And he noted that should components of a House infrastructure bill that was passed on 2020 do not get included now are likely to come back, as people are thinking of things differently, in terms of the environment and sustainability, electric vehicles, and alternative fuels.    

Passage of a long-term bill, he added may benefit from a delay until there is a clearer picture of what transportation and transportation needs are going to look like in a post-Covid world and subsequent recovery.

“I want us skating to where the puck is going to be and not where the puck has been,” he said. “If we pass a bill that is locked into the same funding mechanisms and thought processes about roads, bridges, and transits, and rail crossings, I think we are going to miss a big opportunity to really help propel our economy forward and make sure we really are building and changing our transportation system to reflect where things are going.

As someone who knows more than most about our nation’s transportation infrastructure initiatives and policies, Mullett’s opinions should not be taken lightly, by any stretch. That said, there is a lot to chew on, as we look ahead to what happens on the transportation and infrastructure legislative front in 2021. Buckle up, or to borrow Mullett’s hockey analogy, sharpen your skates for what should be an interesting period.