2550 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
jgarbuckle@2025lawandpolicy.com
anand@sinfpi.org
January 22, 2025
A Note from Blueprint 2025 and The Strategic Infrastructure Performance Institute
Financing Public Infrastructure – The Trump I Precedent
U.S. Infrastructure development policies historically have relied heavily on federal funding and
federal-level oversight as the primary driving forces for development of needed public
infrastructure – the highways, bridges, waterworks and other basic necessities that provide the
foundation for the country’s development and the living standards of its people. However, the
first Trump Administration recognized that the infrastructure policy that built these basic
necessities would not be adequate to support maintenance and upgrading of that system, much
less the addition of the more modern infrastructure that the 21st century requires. It saw the need
to accommodate and attract investments from the private sector –including trillions of dollars in
pension and other private funds which seek reliable returns from safe investments. Such an
alternative approach was laid out in the Trump Infrastructure Plan of 2018 and added upon in
subsequent years during that Administration. Unfortunately, there was resistance from those who
saw federal funding as the only way to get facilities built and the federal government as the
essential source of intelligence regarding the fulfillment of public needs. The approach proposed
in the Trump I plans, which would have empowered States, communities and the private sector
to upgrade and modernize infrastructure without creating unsustainable debt levels has never
been fully funded or aggressively advanced.
This note concludes that the policy enunciated in Trump I merits careful consideration as a path
forward in the current Administration.
The Trump I Infrastructure Plan (i)
The Trump Infrastructure Plan first put forward in 2018 was a significant departure from the old
idea that public infrastructure had to be conceived and publicly funded at the federal level. It
proposed to generate $1.5 trillion in infrastructure investment with the investment of $200 billion
in public funds and it proposed to empower States, communities and the private sector to design
the approaches which would most reliably fund projects which would bring the greatest benefits
to the communities that supported the projects and most effectively promote private investments
in those projects.
The proposal met with derision at that time, from those who believed that the federal government
was the only source of expertise regarding public infrastructure and that the control inherent in
federal funding was essential to prevent failures. The recent election calls those premises into
question. States, communities and the private sector do have the expertise to make the right
project decisions and to apply modern technology and more creative approaches to develop
projects which require less public funding and yield superior results.
The Premises
The Trump I plan to create the infrastructure needed to enable effective U.S. participation and
leadership in the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” was based on recognition of the following
principles
1. Infrastructure is not just Roads, Streets, Bridges, Sewers and Waterworks. It is all of the
systems which underpin U.S. innovation, leadership and quality of life. At this point in time,
the most important new U.S. infrastructure will be that which supports digitization, analytics,
artificial intelligence and the technologies which are driving leadership and innovation in the
21st century.
2. There will never be enough federal money to maintain and upgrade conventional
infrastructure –much less to support the new age infrastructure needed to bring us into the
21st century. Federal funding and incentive programs must leverage federal investments and
participation to encourage big multipliers from private sector investments and engagement.
As our railroads were funded by the development of adjacent properties, the development
and maintenance of transportation-related resources can be funded from planned
development of rights of way and other adjacent properties. The new dynamics of
development for the digitized infrastructure of the future make this a realistic possibility.
3. To attract private investments, development plans need to focus on projects which will
generate broad community benefits and be perceived as so doing. This means that
development must be multi-purpose rather than single function. Communities and their
leaders, along with the private sector investor/developers, need to be fully engaged in the
development dialog and broad community benefits must be the projects’ currency. The
measure of infrastructure must be the public good and the affected public is the appropriate
determiner of what that is.
4. There should be continuous and effective collaboration among the affected communities and
institutions. The RELLIS research and innovation campus at Texas A & M University is an
example of the kind of engine for innovation and profit that this kind of collaboration can
generate. Failure to promote this kind of dialog leaves tremendous opportunities on the table.
5. Effective engagement with State, regional and local governments can create regulatory and
policy climates conducive to proper development. Virginia’s experience with data centers
illustrates the advantages of effective State policy and planning.
6. Development plans should bundle complementary technologies to achieve optimal public
benefits from the resources used and, as a result, maximum return on investment.
Attachment A illustrates the bundle visualized for the Ohio Route30 Opportunity Corridor—
a kind of bundle which should be extremely appealing to national policymakers, but, more
importantly, to the folk in the region that will need to accept and support the projects and the
private investors that will help fund them.
7. A private financing institution focused on infrastructure development – a federally chartered
Federal Infrastructure Bank can be a source of expertise and a promoter of the sort of
collaboration that is needed to promote the objectives of the Trump I plan.
8. Infrastructure development in this century should consist of well-designed bundles of
projects and services likely led by data analytics and energy generation and transmission,
combined with elements which provide obvious public benefits. Data centers, energy
providers and other developers will face challenges if they elect to stand alone. Continued
public acceptance will depend in large part on the mix of projects put forward and the
public’s perception of their impacts and benefits.
The Promises and Problems
Digitization, Data Analytics, AI and the other new technologies create major new opportunities
and have generated a rush which will undoubtedly result in profits. As with other rushes,
however, we are seeing and will continue to see pushbacks and setbacks. States and
Communities are increasingly seeing that the Data Centers which lead many projects will eat the
public’s power and may not return obvious community benefits. Utilities are seeing the stresses
on their generation and delivery capabilities and are asking the PUCs and PSCs for authority to
impose additional charges and increased rates on Data Center and other high-energy-use
customers. High energy users are increasingly finding it difficult to find locations with access to
power and other necessary resources. Moreover, the power that they do find may be subject to
rate variability, long-term commitment requirements, etc. which impede capital formation and
could endanger profitability over the long term.
The appropriate response is well planned collaboration and bundling of services including
carefully designed long-term energy plans. That approach, in addition to enhancing the security
of investments, offers multiple profit centers, enhanced public buy-in and real community
benefits. In short, the development of data centers, other digital and AI technologies and other
high-use-developments is not business as usual. There must be serious planning, outreach and
detailed consultation at the State and local level based on full appreciation of the special
dynamics of these new technologies. The Trump I approach – empowering States, communities
and the private sector to develop multi-function plans to optimize both community benefits and
overall profitability seems better adapted to progress than the old way of single purpose,
4
federally funded and dominated projects. It needs another try – with less embedded resistance
and fewer silos.
The Path Forward
Although DOT’s BUILD, RAISE and TIGER grant programs were intended to demonstrate the
viability of local empowerment and leveraging public funding to generate private investment,
there was opposition to these initiatives from those seeking to maximize federal control and
reliance on traditional approaches to get dirt moved and cement poured at early project phases.
As a result, there has been little enthusiasm within the traditional branches of the traditional
agencies for the kind of planning and up front support required to make non-traditional projects
like innovation and research corridors feasible and financeable. Successful public/private
projects have been largely limited to those with obvious revenue streams like tollways, toll
bridges and airports. The more innovative projects, such as those described in the attachment,
have not been prioritized. As a result, transportation projects, and public infrastructure projects in
general have been relatively unsuccessful in generating the kind of high-tech multi-purpose
development exemplified by the RELLIS campus. Nothing near the $200 billion proposed in the
Trump I plan has been provided and the leverage offered by the plan has not been achieved.
Since enactment of the Emergency Relief, Inflation Reduction and CHIPS Acts, the U.S.’
primary tool for advancement of new, cutting-edge technologies has been the grant of tax credits
and similar incentives to selected developers in selected industries and it is reported that more
than $600 Billion in revenues has been devoted to that effort. Though that approach has clearly
created value, it has also raised questions that the incoming Administration is addressing, and it
is likely that refocusing will be required.
Moreover, since the IIJA/IRA/CHIPS subsidization approach does not address the needs which
would be advanced by a revitalization of the Trump I approach –empowering States,
communities and the private sector, using federal funding to leverage private investment in
public infrastructure projects and encourage creative multipurpose bundling to make public
infrastructure an engine for community development and new creative enterprise—the
IIJA/IRA/CHIPS approach should not be treated as a substitute for the Trump I approach or
allowed to supplant it.
We recommend that the State, community and private sector empowerment approaches put
forward in Trump I be revisited and fully funded. The leveraging emphasis put forward in
programs such as RAISE, BUILD and TIGER should be restored and reemphasized. Efforts like
those of the Department of Transportation’s Build America Bureau, which seek to promote
innovation and multidisciplinary approaches to their missions should be emphasized and
elevated. Siloed functions at both federal and State levels which lock us into single purpose
approaches which impede progress should be revisited and revised.
Conclusion
To summarize, the U.S.’ ability to fulfill the infrastructure needs of this 21st century can be
significantly enhanced through the empowerment and leveraging approach proposed by the first
Trump Administration – allowing and assisting States, communities and the private sector to
develop well-designed bundles of projects and services and bring in private investments in those
projects. This approach, exemplified by the Ohio Route 30 Opportunity Corridor, the Texas
Route 30 Corridor and the West Virginia Advanced Technology Corridor, can maximize public
benefits, ensure greater return on both private and public investment, and gain the necessary
public and private sector support. This policy for advancement of public and community
benefits through new technologies brings both opportunities and challenges, necessitating
collaborative planning and tailored long-term energy strategies.
The historical reliance on single-purpose, federally controlled projects must give way to
empowered State, community, and private sector initiatives. DOT programs like BUILD,
RAISE, and TIGER can develop ways to leverage public funds to attract private investments,
though to date siloed thinking, resistance to non-traditional projects and embedded regulatory
policies has limited their progress. Revisiting, resurrecting and fully funding the State,
community, and private sector empowerment approaches advanced in the Trump I infrastructure
plans emphasizing the kind of multidisciplinary approaches which that and revising siloed
functions at federal and state levels will be key to fostering innovation and comprehensive
community development.
Endnote
By 2016, the year of Donald Trump’s first election, our founder Norman Anderson had been a thought leader in the infrastructure
community for over thirty years. Frustrated with the inability of that era’s policy makers to understand and deal with the demands
of 21st century infrastructure, he reached out to the incoming Trump Administration in the hope that a businessman President
without preconceived attitudes would be able to reformulate infrastructure policy to focus it toward the future, make it more
nimble and efficient, effectively engage the private sector and otherwise do what is necessary to return the U.S. to its proper
position as the country with the worlds’ most efficient, most productive and most sustainable infrastructure. He established the
Strategic Infrastructure Performance Institute as a sort of think tank to support the development of those policies and started the
Blueprint 2025 Initiative to give voice to his extensive network of infrastructure professionals regarding the pressing policy
issues of that time. His infrastructure policy thoughts—enhanced by engagement with Trump infrastructure advisors—are
embodied in his book Vision: Our Strategic Infrastructure Roadmap Forward Since Norman’s untimely passing in December of
2021, his companies, friends and colleagues have been working together to perfect the Vision and carry it forward. This note,
based on the Institute’s experience with projects such as the Ohio Opportunity Corridor, the Texas SH 130 Corridor and the West
Virginia High Tech Corridor — which embody the Vision concepts, lays out a path forward to a better infrastructure future.
Excerpts from Norman Anderson book: Vision, discussing prospects for the Ohio
Route 30 Opportunity Corridor
There is a winding highway from Canton, Ohio, to the Pennsylvania border just north of
Pittsburgh. It travels through some of the poorest counties in America but sits on top of the
thirdlargest pool of natural gas in the world-right on top of the Utica Shale and Marcellus
Shale. The highway is dangerous, and slow. It takes more than two hours to drive from
Pittsburgh to Canton, less than 90 miles away. At the same time, like the rest of forgotten
America, it is rich in talented people and world-class businesses-Smucker’s, Kenan
Advantage in northern Canton (the largest fuel-delivery company in America), Beaver
Excavating (the seventh-largest excavation company in the U.S.), and First Energy’s regional
energy business, providing electricity all the way from Toledo, Ohio, to Maryland and New
Jersey. Is the region a backwater, or a powerhouse? Is it the heart of America, or a place
where Wall Street can make money?
What if those businesses were connected through a single world-class logistics system
uniting agriculture, transportation, energy, services and manufacturing?
The expansion and straightening of U.S. 30 will create not only a logistics platform from
Canton to Pittsburgh, and a model for an investor-owned corridor between the Midwest
and the East, but it will also create the smartest highway infrastructure in the U.S. Let me
give you a glimpse of the benefits. The highway would be 5G-enabled throughout its 83-
mile stretch, providing schools, homes, medical facilities and businesses with high-speed
internet. It will have a utility corridor down the center-fiber optics, natural gas, water, high-
voltage electricityall leaseholders, providing services to farmers, the dynamically
increasing number of local businesses, and trucks and people driving through. Remember
that cars and trucks will be increasingly electric, and will need either high-voltage charging
stations, or their batteries will be charged by the high-voltage highway as they roll toward
their destinations.
Next, look at something we’ll call 5 G Logistics. What’s really happening is that U.S. 30 is a
digital highway. Trucks are autonomous, so crossing from Pennsylvania to Ohio, sensors
seamlessly pick them up and provide vehicles the information they need to travel rapidly
and efficiently, likely stopping at the-also automated-intermodal facility north of Pittsburgh
to drop off and pick up cargo, and doing the same just outside of Canton.
And every “touch” is producing new public and private revenue. The trucking companies
pay a small amount for sensor interactivity, charging and 5G guidance. Businesses along
the way pay for new services that are available. And all of this-perhaps even a digital taxpays for local public services and provides dividends to the highway’s owners. Take note
that this logistics platform is seamlessly connected to the new U.S. coast-to-coast
logistics network, and thus local businesses are no longer in the middle of nowhere, but are
at the heart of everywhere.
Finally, the really good part-since the above is nice, but somewhere between plausible and
alarming -this platform will drive the high-velocity reshoring of the U.S. manufacturing
base. The giant sucking sound we heard 20 years ago as U.S. jobs were whooshed to China
will be heard again as 3D printing, price-accounting that weighs carbon emissions, and the
advantages of local production make it a nobrainer for businesses to create
manufacturing facilities across in the U.S. (And with an optimized ecosystem like the one
projected for U.S. 30, the economies of the Midwest would rise from the dead.)
These are the jobs of the future, not just processing data, but creating whole new
businesses, products and user experiences based on the 5G ecosystem. As long as you
have a node-and U.S. 30 is a super node-you can dream up a business and have the same
chance of success as anyone else anywhere in America.
This kind of planning is happening across the country, from Innovation Park outside of
Reno, through the Great Lakes Basin integrated highway, rail and airport project creating a
world-class logistics platform around Chicago, uniting the interrupted network in northern
Indiana, northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin.
Recent Comments