Infrastructure strategy touted by Trump has produced uneven results

In late October, before a restless crowd in Gettysburg, Penn,, Republican-elect Donald Trump laid out the closing argument of his campaign.

“What follows is my 100day action plan to Make America Great Again,” he declared, enumerating legislative and executive actions that were punctuated by applause from the crowd.

His agenda rested on the familiar pillars of his campaign — building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, renegotiating trade deals and repealing the Affordable Care Act. It also touched on his ambitious infrastructure proposal, the “American Energy and Infrastructure Act.”

“[The plan] leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years,” Trump said. “Our infrastructure is in such trouble … we will fix that.”

The following week, two of Trump’s campaign advisers published a white paper providing additional details on the trillion-dollar plan. The paper largely focused on tax-breaks for private investors who put their money toward infrastructure projects. The term “publicprivate partnerships,” however, appeared only twice.

Broadly speaking, publicprivate partnerships (P3s) are agreements in which a private sector party provides a service that is traditionally delivered by a public agency. In terms of infrastructure, a private partner typically assumes significant responsibility and risk over a project’s design, construction or operation.

As the Trump administration hammers out the fine print of its proposal, it may find willing partners at the state level, as legislatures across the country show increased interest in P3s. Private investors and infrastructure associations also appear excited about the prospect.

“We don’t know the exact contours of the plan, or the exact emphasis he’s going to put on P3s,” said Pat Jones, CEO of the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association (IBTTA). “[But] the very fact that he’s speaking about it raises the level of debate and allows a lot of players that have been standing on the sidelines to come to the fore.”

Public-private partnerships, however, have been responsible for only a small number of infrastructure projects in the last three decades. Less than 1 percent of spending on highways nationwide, for example, came from P3s in the last 25 years, and a number of these highway projects hit stumbling blocks.

As Trump pushes for private funding to support his $1 trillion infrastructure plan, the exact role — and effectiveness — of P3s in a large-scale, nationwide infrastructure plan remains unclear.

Enthusiasm at the state level

States increasingly are turning to P3s to finance transportation projects that traditionally have been underwritten by federal, state and local governments. In March, Kentucky became the 34th state to authorize the use of P3s. In June, New Hampshire became the 35th.

Governments also are turning to P3s for infrastructure projects that have nothing to do with roads and bridges. In November, Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington, D.C., announced the creation of the Office of Public-Private Partnerships to promote private investment in infrastructure projects across the District. The office plans to lead the construction of a new jail, a renovation of police headquarters, and a modernization of the city’s streetlight system.

A key benefit of P3s comes from “leveraging the private sector’s expertise and resources,” a January report by the National Conference of State Legislatures said.

Proponents of P3s argue that competition within the private sector promotes innovative and cost-effective solutions, which often evade public agencies. Private sector partners also assume a portion of the risk, which means taxpayers do not solely bear the burden if a project