The Senate passed a $1 trillion infrastructure bill this month, and the House will get a crack at it when representatives return to Washington from their recess Sept. 20.
The $1 trillion Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act would produce about $550 billion in new spending for America’s “roads and bridges, water infrastructure, resilience, internet and more.” About $110 billion of that would go toward the nation’s roads, bridges and “major transportation projects.” Seventy-three billion dollars would be dedicated to power infrastructure, with $66 billion for passenger and freight rail, $65 billion for broadband and $50 billion for water infrastructure.
The funds dedicated to public transit ($39 billion), airports ($25 billion), environmental remediation ($21 billion), ports ($17 billion) and transportation safety ($11 billion) also represent sizable chunks of the bill.
The White House says the bill would be funded through a variety of means – including unused relief funds tied to the pandemic and unemployment insurance.
“The final product we expect the Senate to approve in the coming days will provide transformative federal investment into our crumbling infrastructure network, grow our national economy and create millions of jobs throughout the country,” says Michael Johnson, president and CEO of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (NSSGA). “This is a once-in-a-generation infrastructure effort, and NSSGA urges every senator to support this legislation.”
According to the White House, about 20 percent of U.S. highways, roads and bridges are in poor condition. This percentage encompasses 173,000 total miles and 45,000 bridges.
The proposed bill includes a total of $40 billion in new funding for bridge repair, replacement and rehabilitation, representing what the Biden administration characterizes as the “single-largest dedicated bridge investment since the construction of the interstate highway system.”
Additionally, the White House says the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act would add, on average, about 2 million jobs per year over the course of a decade.
What the industry is saying
Regardless of whether or not this infrastructure bill passes, a conversation has been underway in Washington for quite a while over what constitutes “infrastructure.”
Infrastructure, to those who produce construction materials, is very much about roads, bridges and highways. Historically, these have widely been accepted as “infrastructure.”
But this historic definition is being skewed of late, with the concept of “human infrastructure” surfacing and being pitted against “physical infrastructure.” Matt Bai of The Washington Post explains what he sees on this front in the nation’s capital.
“In adopting this rhetorical framework, [President] Biden was bowing to leftists in his party, “Bai writes. “They love this term ‘human infrastructure,’ nonsensical as it is, because they think describing all that spending as ‘infrastructure’ somehow makes it more palatable to voters who are skeptical of government programs generally.”
Because of this new conversation, the meaning of “infrastructure” has been bandied about in industry circles lately, as well.
“We talk about the definition of infrastructure,” says Brad Nichols, product line manager at Syntron Material Handling. “It’s the physical and organizational structures needed for the operation of society or enterprise. The big thing is if it’s developing and expanding the growth of society [and] of the ability to do interstate commerce [and] do operation. Generally, that’s what’s been described as infrastructure.”
Industry stakeholders such as Nichols – including material producers and contractors, manufacturers and dealers – are ultimately concerned about enough infrastructure dollars being put forth in the years to come. While stakeholders say the U.S. should do more to build on its existing infrastructure, many are simply worried about the nation’s ability to maintain what’s already in place.
Will Pierce, vice president of engineering at Schurco Slurry, recently shared an anecdote illustrating this point. Says Pierce: “This happened recently in Jacksonville, Florida – my hometown, where our headquarters and manufacturing is. The widest and longest bridge in Jacksonville had a section lift. Nobody was injured or killed. The DOT (Department of Transportation) was able to come in and put a big metal plate over it. But there’s this big scab on this giant bridge. It’s a major artery for the state – not just for people, but moving materials and goods that are important for the economy of the state.
“There are examples like this all over the country,” he adds. “We have to do something. We’re allowing these things to unravel. Our politicians have to see it. I feel like at a certain point we’re approaching an inevitability of ‘something’s going to happen.’ I think we’re getting there with the [infrastructure] bill. Everybody sees the need for it, and everyone would benefit from it. But I think the driving point is every American would benefit from it.”
Sean Weisiger, aggregate operations director at Conn-Weld Industries, is also concerned about U.S. infrastructure. Weisiger shared a story that illustrates why deviating from the traditional definition of infrastructure is dangerous.
“I live in Virginia, and I remember back to 2012-2013,” Weisiger says. “We had a different administration locally in Virginia and passed sales tax increases for infrastructure traditionally. A lot of projects were going on. I remember sitting in meetings, and Virginia was held up as an example: ‘Look what they did to raise money on their own.’
“Well, then the administrations changed,” Weisiger adds, “and I remember sitting at a state organization meeting and our new governor came in. He said: ‘Guys, great news: We figured out how to pay for the Affordable Care Act. The bad news is all those projects that are on the books are no longer on the books anymore.’
“By changing that definition of infrastructure in recent history, we’ve seen how that can negatively affect our spending of infrastructure dollars,” he concludes. “That’s what concerns me the most about lumping all that in and making a new definition of infrastructure.”
AMCAST president and CEO Tomaso Veneroso has infrastructure concerns of his own. Veneroso says a key issue for him is how funds are generated and then dedicated.
“The issue is how you get the money and then how you use the money,” he says. “The issue is that a lot of people are nervous. Let’s say we agreed [about] the amount of money that is going to be [for] infrastructure. Then, the major concern for us is how can you recruit money? And people will say: ‘Well, I think that everybody agrees if we spend all the money wisely, specifically with infrastructure, who cares if we raise the taxes?’ That, to me, is the big if.”