The National Infrastructure Bank is a first step in creating a coherent vision of American infrastructure. First, the use of bonds – rather than a pay-as-you-go system that relies on yearly revenues – allows the federal government to develop a stable, long-term strategy for economic growth based on infrastructure improvements. Such a financing stream is less subject to political whims and to revenues, which fluctuate with the economy and with legislative action (and inaction). Second, federal funding for infrastructure – in particular, for the transportation system – is often diverted by state governments to other (sometimes) worthy, yet non-infrastructure, projects. Puentes of Brookings points out that the Government Accountability Office has called the federal transportation fund a “cash transfer, general purpose grant program,” and that “the U.S. code neuters the federal role and states specifically that the appropriation of highway funds ‘shall in no way infringe on the sovereign rights of the States to determine which projects shall be federally financed.’” The National Infrastructure Bank would ensure that federal funds are used by state and local governments for specific infrastructure projects, rather than diverted to make up for, say, underfunded federal mandates.

Perhaps most importantly, the selection criteria required by the National Infrastructure Bank would encourage the federal government to undertake projects that are significant to the country’s long-term well-being: rather than stop-gap measures to repair existing problems, such projects would take into account new challenges like climate change, the growing importance of urban areas, and the need for more affordable housing, while at the same time confronting the more typical concerns associated with economic growth (increased air, highway, and port traffic). A database with details about each infrastructure project and its funding would provide at least some public oversight.

Interestingly, political support for an infrastructure bank is growing. The day after Senators Dodd and Hagel announced their plan – and the day after the Minnesota bridge collapse – Senator Hillary Clinton signed onto the bill as a co-sponsor. A week later, Senator Clinton gave a major speech entitled “Rebuilding America: Improving Our Infrastructure” and endorsed the legislation, lamenting that we in the United States “are treading water and being swept backwards.” Her specific plan – like her economic stimulus package – includes a panoply of measures to repair the “backlog” of deficient transportation structures, to conduct safety reviews, to increase public transit funding (and to link these funds to local land use policies), to invest in intercity passenger rail systems, to modernize seaports, to increase funding for congestion reduction programs, and to improve broadband deployment. Senator Barack Obama’s proposal was – like his economic stimulus package – more straightforward. In his “Keeping America’s Promise” economic speech on February 13th, Senator Obama proposed a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to invest $60 billion in transportation infrastructure over ten years. He has previously called for increased Amtrak funding, high-speed railways, metropolitan planning to reduce traffic congestion, and improved transportation access for low-income commuters. On February 13th, a day after his speech, he signed onto Dodd and Hagel’s bill as a co-sponsor.

Additionally, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska proposed an amendment to the Senate’s economic stimulus package that would have directed $5 billion to states for infrastructure projects to be used before October of 2008. Senator Nelson suggested that “An investment in infrastructure and public works projects will not only achieve a much-needed boost to our economy, but will also promote long-term economic growth.”

Pronouncements by presidential candidates and a rather optimistic amendment to fast-tracked legislation are positive, if modest, indicators that a national movement to invest in infrastructure is mounting. Even relatively insignificant problems with infrastructure have received ample attention recently. Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that two bridge inspectors in Georgia had been falsifying inspection records because of a fast approaching federal deadline. Officials were alerted when they noted that the two were inspecting bridges at a rate of 18 per day; the average is 12 per week. Admittedly, there are significant issues to work out with a national infrastructure bank. The European Investment Bank, an infrastructure-financing behemoth established in 1953 and a likely model for an American infrastructure bank, is criticized for its lack of transparency and its lack of social and environmental standards.

Large-scale public works projects will always be subject to conflicting priorities, funding difficulties, cronyism, and, of course, the mafia. Indeed, such infrastructure projects are designed to be patronage machines because they use public funds in part simply to create jobs. Yet, this is no reason to fall prey to the starve-the-beast philosophy of the current administration that has allowed American infrastructure to age and permitted a patchwork of private firms to profit from the spoils of disaster capitalism. Rather, emphasis must be placed on centralizing funding streams for infrastructure that can then be distributed based on a long-term vision of American economic success. Such a vision would emphasize the urban areas where most of the American population lives and from where most American prosperity is generated; would confront the environmental challenges associated with both aging infrastructure and new construction; and would consider the benefits and the dilemmas linked to the ever-increasing mobility of people and goods. With this purposefulness, infrastructure projects as fundamental and as forgotten as urban sewage facilities and desalination plants would receive the attention and the financing that they have long been denied. A National Infrastructure Bank is a means of encouraging this far-sighted vision.