Infrastructure Bill 2021

[ITB]

With the writing of the legislation now complete and votes taken in the Senate to begin debate, the bipartisan Infrastructure Bill of 2021 is rapidly moving toward reality. The bill authorizes $550 billion in new expenditures, of which a massive $110 billion is dedicated for roads and bridges. Here's the breakdown, as of August 2, 2021, of the proposed expenditures involving roads and bridges:

- $55.48 billion – Increased Contract Authority

- $55.52 billion – Supplemental Appropriations

     – $36.375 billion, Bridge Grant Program
     – $7.5 billion, Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) grants; (formerly BUILD grants)
     – $5 billion, National Infrastructure Project Assistance grant program
     – $3.2 billion, Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) Grant Program
     – $1.25 billion, Appalachian Development Highway System formula program
     – $1 billion, Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration
     – $500 million, Surface Transportation Private Activity Bonds
     – $95 million, University Transportation Centers

As the bill moves forward, there will likely be amendments and minor tweaks to the legislation. It's been reported that what is finalized and passed in the Senate will, in all likelihood, be approved by the House without modifications. Exactly how much additional money each state can expect to receive for roads and bridges, as well as other infrastructure, has yet to be released.

A summary of the entire infrastructure bill (as of August 2, 2021) can be accessed here.

     

[Roadgeekteen]

Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?

[hbelkins]

The "culvert" entry is particularly intriguing.

Kentucky went on a spree last year inspecting and closing a number of larger culverts, both on state and locally-maintained roads. I heard that there was an influx of federal money to fund the inspections and that this was a special effort to evaluate smaller structures that would not necessarily be considered "structures" under the federal bridge inspection program.

[Scott5114]

Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?

[Rothman]

The "culvert" entry is particularly intriguing.

Kentucky went on a spree last year inspecting and closing a number of larger culverts, both on state and locally-maintained roads. I heard that there was an influx of federal money to fund the inspections and that this was a special effort to evaluate smaller structures that would not necessarily be considered "structures" under the federal bridge inspection program.

Hm.  If true, I wonder what FHWA program code it was.

ETA:  Just checked the FMIS W10A (comprehensive report on available federal funds):  There isn't a nationwide "federal bridge inspection program," from what I can tell.  Rather, states can fund their inspections with other apportioned federal funds.  Makes me wonder if they're Statewide Planning and Research eligible (SPR), though.  Never had to worry about how they were funded in NY, since it was handled at the state level and doesn't affect the capital program.

[jeffandnicole]

Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?

I only spent a few minutes looking on the web, but in layman's terms, this is a *lot* of money for transportation...much more funding than has been previously provided. Even the amount of money projected in BUILD & TIGER grants doesn't some closer to the spending proposed here.

However, there is a downside to more money. There are only so many contractors that can bid for work on our roadways, and they subcontract the work out to many of the same companies and workers. So while there's more money available, there is a relatively fixed amount of people that can do the work. And anyone that has a simple understsnding of economics will know that when demand outweighs supply, peoject costs will generally rise.

[kalvado]

Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?

I only spent a few minutes looking on the web, but in layman's terms, this is a *lot* of money for transportation...much more funding than has been previously provided. Even the amount of money projected in BUILD & TIGER grants doesn't some closer to the spending proposed here.

However, there is a downside to more money. There are only so many contractors that can bid for work on our roadways, and they subcontract the work out to many of the same companies and workers. So while there's more money available, there is a relatively fixed amount of people that can do the work. And anyone that has a simple understsnding of economics will know that when demand outweighs supply, peoject costs will generally rise.

For Syracuse I-81, the project which may get a slice of these funds, narration was that there will be no (or limited) outside contractors, and jobs will go to locals.
Which presents a few challenges, including finding applicants, training arrangements and resulting quality of construction.
The question still stands for equipment and materials - such as cement and steel. As there would likely be a "buy american" provision of some sort attached to these funds, and that other industries would face the same issue, I wonder if $100B would do much in terms of usable pavement.

[hbelkins]

The "culvert" entry is particularly intriguing.

Kentucky went on a spree last year inspecting and closing a number of larger culverts, both on state and locally-maintained roads. I heard that there was an influx of federal money to fund the inspections and that this was a special effort to evaluate smaller structures that would not necessarily be considered "structures" under the federal bridge inspection program.

Hm.  If true, I wonder what FHWA program code it was.

ETA:  Just checked the FMIS W10A (comprehensive report on available federal funds):  There isn't a nationwide "federal bridge inspection program," from what I can tell.  Rather, states can fund their inspections with other apportioned federal funds.  Makes me wonder if they're Statewide Planning and Research eligible (SPR), though.  Never had to worry about how they were funded in NY, since it was handled at the state level and doesn't affect the capital program.

The correct phrasing I should have used is "inspect bridges in accordance with federal standards." The normal bridge inspection program may not be federally funded, but federal standards call for an inspection generally every two years, with fracture-critical or other bridges being inspected annually.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?

Sends federal dollars to the states for various road projects (whatever each state wishes) which in turn will lead to better discussions on this site.

[HighwayStar]

Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?

Both factually accurate and culturally informed! Hats off to you! 

[hbelkins]

Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?

Sends federal dollars to the states for various road projects (whatever each state wishes) which in turn will lead to better discussions on this site.

I'm curious how much sign-off either Congress or FHWA will have on the expenditure of those dollars. Will they specify certain projects (you get $15 to build a parallel bridge to the Brent Spence, you get $9 to complete NY 17 as a freeway, etc.) or will the money just be block-granted to the states to spend as they wish?

A lot of this c0v1d relief money is going to local governments with very few strings attached.

[jeffandnicole]

Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?

Sends federal dollars to the states for various road projects (whatever each state wishes) which in turn will lead to better discussions on this site.

I'm curious how much sign-off either Congress or FHWA will have on the expenditure of those dollars. Will they specify certain projects (you get $15 to build a parallel bridge to the Brent Spence, you get $9 to complete NY 17 as a freeway, etc.) or will the money just be block-granted to the states to spend as they wish?

A lot of this c0v1d relief money is going to local governments with very few strings attached.

Technically speaking, it doesn't matter. Let's say a state has $100 dollars to spend but their needs total $150 worth of projects they want to build.  If the feds give them $20 for Project G, that means they still have $100 to spend, but now only on $130 worth of projects to fund. The state can exclude the funding needs for Project G now.

[ITB]

Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?

I'll attempt a stab at it. But as I'm no expert by any measure, if anybody notices anything incorrect, please chime in.

First and foremost, the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act commits the federal government to spending/disbursing an additional $550 billion on infrastructure over the next five years. The key word here is, of course, "additional." Of this $550 billion, $110 billion is to be dedicated for roads and bridges, whether repair and reconstruction or new. This is new spending authority on top on what the federal government usually spends on roads and bridges.

As commonly known, every year the feds, mainly through the Department of Transportation, disburse billions of dollars to states for transportation projects. This money is collected via the 18¢ a gallon federal gas tax and other fees. There is a formula used to ensure that each state gets its fair share. Some states, however, feel it's not so equal, but that's another matter altogether. Anyway, this typical yearly federal spending will continue as usual, and the federal gas tax will not be raised. The infrastructure bill of 2021 authorizes increased spending, in addition to these regular transportion-related disbursements to states, to the tune of $55.48 billion over five years. That's the "Increased Contract Authority" line item in the legislation. In all likelihood, this additional $55.48 billion will be disbursed to states using the same formula currently in use. States with large populations such as Texas and North Carolina will receive more funding than smaller states like Delaware and Wyoming, and so on.

In addition to Increased Contract Authority funding, the legislation also significantly boosts supplemental appropriations. This, too, is new spending, and over five years $55.52 billion is to be dispersed. The majority of this funding, $36.735 billion, is for bridges, mainly to repair and replace deficient and outdated structures. It appears this money will be disbursed competitively to states through grants. Other grant programs, such as Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE; formerly BUILD) and the Infrastructure to Rebuild America (INFRA), among others, also will receive significant additional funding.

In short, the infrastructure bill of 2021, if passed and signed into law, directs the federal government to spend an additional $550 billion on infrastructure over the next five years. This is a really big thing, not only for the country's road and bridge network, but for rail and transit systems and broadband connectivity, as well.

[hbelkins]

Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?

Sends federal dollars to the states for various road projects (whatever each state wishes) which in turn will lead to better discussions on this site.

I'm curious how much sign-off either Congress or FHWA will have on the expenditure of those dollars. Will they specify certain projects (you get $15 to build a parallel bridge to the Brent Spence, you get $9 to complete NY 17 as a freeway, etc.) or will the money just be block-granted to the states to spend as they wish?

A lot of this c0v1d relief money is going to local governments with very few strings attached.

Technically speaking, it doesn't matter. Let's say a state has $100 dollars to spend but their needs total $150 worth of projects they want to build.  If the feds give them $20 for Project G, that means they still have $100 to spend, but now only on $130 worth of projects to fund. The state can exclude the funding needs for Project G now.

I wonder if this can be compared to the ARRA (Obama's stimulus program) and the TIGER grants. We had a project that was going to be state-funded and everything was done except for actual construction. The plans were developed, right of way was bought, utilities were moved. The state just didn't have the money for construction. (Actually, the state did have the money, but it had been allocated elsewhere). When the feds came around with that money, the project got funded and one of those fancy road signs went up.

I wonder if there will be similar signs denoting projects funded by this bill?

[SkyPesos]

Hopefully some of the bridge grant money gets allocated for the Brent Spence twin span. Pipe dream of mine.

[kernals12]

I hope the Sagamore and Bourne Bridges can get replaced. And it would only be fair if the Feds paid the full cost because it was their widening of the canal that created the traffic bottleneck in the first place.

And then we could stop those jokes about the tunnel

[Rothman]

Can someone explain what the bill will actually do in layman's terms?

Sends federal dollars to the states for various road projects (whatever each state wishes) which in turn will lead to better discussions on this site.

I'm curious how much sign-off either Congress or FHWA will have on the expenditure of those dollars. Will they specify certain projects (you get $15 to build a parallel bridge to the Brent Spence, you get $9 to complete NY 17 as a freeway, etc.) or will the money just be block-granted to the states to spend as they wish?

A lot of this c0v1d relief money is going to local governments with very few strings attached.

Technically speaking, it doesn't matter. Let's say a state has $100 dollars to spend but their needs total $150 worth of projects they want to build.  If the feds give them $20 for Project G, that means they still have $100 to spend, but now only on $130 worth of projects to fund. The state can exclude the funding needs for Project G now.

I wonder if this can be compared to the ARRA (Obama's stimulus program) and the TIGER grants. We had a project that was going to be state-funded and everything was done except for actual construction. The plans were developed, right of way was bought, utilities were moved. The state just didn't have the money for construction. (Actually, the state did have the money, but it had been allocated elsewhere). When the feds came around with that money, the project got funded and one of those fancy road signs went up.

I wonder if there will be similar signs denoting projects funded by this bill?

ARRA and TIGER were, in the case of the former, a special stimulus bill and, in the case of the latter, a special grant program.  This infrastructure bill is more of a traditional funding and apportionment transportation bill and therefore affects the entirety of states' federally-funded programs of projects.

So, I doubt there will be signs as there were with the specialized funding in the cases mentioned.

[triplemultiplex]

For historical context, this bill is a really big deal. Nothing close to this scale has happened in my lifetime, in terms of infrastructure investment by the United States.  I'm pretty sure this rivals the 1968 supplemental to the Interstate Highway Act (inflation adjusted) in terms of federal money for roads.

Not going to count those chickens before they hatch, but they've gotten farther than my pessimism expected so far.  Still the possibility to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, though, if the kooks from the fringes screw this up.  We've kicked this can too far down the road as a country.  Most politicians from across the spectrum have been talking the talk on this subject forever but haven't delivered much.  This is big enough to where people are going to start new construction companies to get in on these projects.

I am looking forward to seeing a list of specific major projects that will get funded if this goes thru.

[kernals12]

So it looks like Interstate 14 is going to happen, Ted Cruz and Ralph Warnock got an amendment added (the fact that those two could agree is pretty incredible).


One justification its supporters give is that it would link together military bases. That's obviously bullshit. But it would link together numerous midsized cities in the South and more interestingly, it would bring an interstate highway straight through the Deep South's "Black Belt". This would be a good opportunity to change the narrative on the racial impact of the interstate highway system, because it would bring black communities together rather than splitting them apart.

[Georgia]

Not sure one interstate is going to do that but it is a start.

[ilpt4u]

Wait...we can't/don't have more MS River Bridges over the Lower Mississippi for a 3rd Memphis Bridge nor for I-69, but lets add another one to the project list for I-14? Suuuuurrrrreeeeeee

[Georgia]

I am laughing at them calling Gulfport a strategic military port also,  Mobile and Pascagoula would be far more important in that regard in that vicinity. 

[froggie]

^ The main Navy Seabee base is less than a mile from the Port of Gulfport, so I can see that call happening.

[Roadgeekteen]

Is the Louisana section really necessary?

[Bruce]

The program should have been 100% repair and replace. Throwing money into I-14 is going to be about as useful as building a FritzOwl corridor.