Feature Articles

Planning for Good Public Infrastructure

February 16, 2007

By Melissa Tchirkow

On November 9-two days after Californians passed the largest public bond infrastructure in U.S. history—Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) held a joint conference — Infrastructure: Investing in Our Future—to discuss solutions to the state's burgeoning infrastructure and transportation crises.

Moderated by Con Howe, director of ULI's Center for Balanced Development in the West, the panel discussion included Robert Dunphy, senior resident fellow of transportation and infrastructure at ULI; Richard T. Reinhard, managing director of Urban Development and Infrastructure Finance at ULI; Fran Inman, senior vice president of corporate development at Majestic Realty; Lynn L. Jacobs, director of California Department of Housing and Community Development, and Richard Katz, head of Richard Katz Consulting, a public policy and government relations firm.

Underfunded and overburdened, the two sectors have long faced the daunting challenge of modernizing the state's transportation and infrastructure systems under squeezed budgets and sprawling populations.

According to Richard Reinhard, 60% of major urban roads in California are congested, 71% of the state's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and 28% of bridges are structurally defi cient or functionally obsolete. With the state's population expected to grow to 58.7 million by 2040, the passage of propositions 1A-1E couldn't be more of a relief.

With the passage, however, California is now in the position of playing “catch up,” as Reinhard pointed out. Modernizing the state's transportation and infrastructure systems will require viable, long-term solutions.

Transportation and infrastructure woes, however, are not a self-contained problem; they affect the state's ability to plan for a more sustainable future, including urban density. As Lynn Jacobs points out, infrastructure and housing are inextricably intertwined. “The lack of infrastructure is our biggest impediment to building infi ll housing in our downtowns,” she said. With antiquated water and sewer systems, cities often cannot support new developments, and often pass the costs of infrastructure upgrades on to private developers.

Melissa Tchirkow is account supervisor of public relations at Davis Agency—a marketing, advertising, branding, and public relations fi rm that services the commercial real estate industry. She can be reached at mtchirkow@hotmail.com.

Panelists' recommendations:

• Look to alternative financing, such as private markets and public-private partnerships. According to Reinhard, traditional public funding is drying up and the Federal Highway Fund may go bankrupt as early as 2009.
• Look to leadership outside of public office, Reinhard said. With infrastructure projects taking decades to come to fruition, public offi cials—who are in office for two or four-year terms—prefer to take up initiatives that produce immediate results for constituents.
• Promote regional cooperation and governance to tackle large-scale planning, infrastructure and transportation issues.
• Maximize dollars by pursuing projects most needed. As Richard Katz explains, the interest on bonds is the fi rst to get paid off, leaving few dollars in the general fund to go to transportation and infrastructure projects. “Therefore, what you get for the dollar becomes very important,” Katz said.
• Develop a system that aggregates and prioritizes proposed projects up for public funding, Katz recommended. The system should encompass all transportation, infrastructure, housing, educational and other civic projects.
• Help voters see where tax dollars are going. The public is more likely to support projects if they can see results. Katz pointed to the success of the “Your tax dollars at work” campaign, which has helped people connect their contributions to public works projects.

The passage of Proposition 1C will provide funds to encourage sustainable residential growth and the development of affordable housing.

Key initiatives include:

• $850 million in grants for public infrastructure projects that facilitate or support the construction of infill housing. Projects could include water, sewer, and transportation improvements; traffi c mitigation; and brownfield clean up. Jacobs' office will be holding stakeholder meetings across the state to gather input on what elements the program should include.
• $200 million for urban, rural, and suburban parks.
• $300 million for the development and construction of housing near transit stations. A notice of funding availability is expected for June 2007, Jacobs said.
• $725 million for affordable home ownership programs to help an estimated 23,600 families.
• $345 million for affordable rental housing for more than 4,000 families.