Infrastructure projects and improvements are essential to all regions across the country, encompassing roads, bridges, transit, water, sewer, and broadband projects. Yet securing federal funding for transformative infrastructure projects can be daunting, particularly for historically underserved communities. The process involves tedious paperwork, complex requirements, and opaque guidelines. Oftentimes, the lack of sufficient staff often deter communities from accessing a multitude of federal benefits and services.

This blog post is intended to be a tool to inspire and mobilize individuals to take action to ensure that federal money is being spent equitably in their neighborhoods toward projects that promote a healthy future for all. An earlier blog post in this series entitled ​“Federal Dollars for Local Infrastructure,” explored how funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)—also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)—has been allocated in the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut region. For this post, we have asked our state directors—Melissa Kaplan-Macey for Connecticut, Maulin Mehta for New York, and Zoe Baldwin for New Jersey—to bring more clarity and transparency to the federal infrastructure funding process by debunking common myths and misconceptions about it.

1. Myth: All federal money is big money

Reality: Although federal money usually headlines as a large figure ($1.2 trillion for IIJA, for example), that money is being dispersed to 50 states, 574 sovereign tribes, five territories, and then hundreds of localities. By the time that the money is shared out, only several million dollars or a few hundred thousand dollars may be allocated to specific projects.

So far, the median funding awarded through IIJA for a given project is only about $515,000, whereas the average cost to replace a single bridge (for example) in the US is closer to $3.8 million. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that there are billions of dollars in funding gaps across infrastructure sectors: $1.2 trillion for surface transportation, $434 billion for water infrastructure, and $68 billion for public parks, to name a few.

This speaks to the chronic underfunding of infrastructure in the nation, a deficit that New York Director, Maulin Mehta, pointed out to be an inhibitor of growth and development. As Mehta puts it, ​“How does the way we fund infrastructure projects really advance modern thinking if many states are simply using these (relatively) small funds to ​‘play catch-up’ on old projects instead of being able to work on innovative, new projects?”

Fortunately, states and cities will often match funds for some projects to help supplement federal dollars. It is for this reason that it is crucial for localities to receive state and city funding matches. Where possible, it is also important for funding to be sought from foundations and other private entities. Such private funding streams are particularly important for sovereign tribal nations, who are not always able to seize maximum funding opportunities due to certain federal grant restrictions, distrust in government processes, and other obstacles.

2. Myth: More Money for the Community

Federal funding automatically means more money for my community

Reality: This depends. A large portion of federal dollars are distributed based on predetermined formulas, which are calculated based on a variety of factors. These funds largely go to state departments of transportation to help pay for projects in their capital programs, and often, these projects are predetermined years in advance. A smaller portion of IIJA funds are discretionary or grant funds, which are controlled by US DOT and applied for by state and local governments. So while more money is flowing, individual communities may or may not see increased investment.

By many accounts, because of the competitive nature of discretionary funding, localities that have more administrative time, staff, and resources to dedicate to filling out grant applications tend to be more successful in acquiring those funds than regions that are under-resourced or under-staffed. This is a prominent equity issue signifying that not all communities necessarily receive the infrastructure funding they deserve.

New Jersey Director Zoe Baldwin, remarks that ​“Some communities in New Jersey [and around the country] have actually turned away federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding because the resources (staff, data collection, certifications, etc.) they would need to acquire to be able to competitively apply for the money would be more than the grant itself is worth.” Mehta and Connecticut Director, Melissa Kaplan-Macey, both observe a similar issue in their respective states, which they classify as an issue of capacity.

Kaplan-Macey feels that the capacity issues in Connecticut lie with challenges inherent to the state’s governance structure and the fact that many localities feel that they cannot compete for discretionary funds because there are few avenues built into the system to assist them in doing so. In 2006, Connecticut established the Office of Responsible Growth, which facilitates interagency coordination to build livable, economically strong communities while protecting Connecticut’s natural resources. This year, the office was allocated additional funding to increase capacity to revitalize towns and provide land use and planning support across the state.

On behalf of New York State, Mehta also points to the issue of the capacity gap between the private and public sectors, which tends to reveal itself in how projects are implemented: Certain counties or localities simply do not have the bandwidth to efficiently and cost-effectively hire the contractors, designers, planners, and engineers, needed to make infrastructure improvements happen effectively. Structural interventions and reprioritizations similar to what Kaplan-Macey describes at the government level also need to be made at the intersection of the public and private sectors to improve capacity, such as hiring personnel to facilitate public-private coordination of infrastructure projects.

3. Myth: IIJA will make all infrastructure projects transformational

Reality: Policy choices will determine whether funding will lead to change or maintain the status quo.

Given her work in Connecticut, Kaplan-Macey remarks, ​“My sense is that there is very little community level engagement informing how funding is rolled out. There is thinking among the community that projects are just ready to go.” Although the state government ultimately determines how IIJA money is spent, community members and advocacy groups can provide input on where the funding is most needed.

Governments can engage community members to understand the local context and impact of the projects they are funding and what the community’s needs are. For example, there is ample funding for rail infrastructure that can be secured through IIJA, and this is something that New York State has already leveraged substantially. But as Kaplan-Macey pointed out, the state of Connecticut is much more car-dependent and bus-dependent than NYC and needs infrastructure dollars to meet those needs. Understanding these local differences through community engagement is key to identifying local priorities, and it is up to advocacy groups and active citizens to make their communities’ needs known to elected officials.

To this end, Baldwin advises, ​“Narrative is extremely important. People should testify at budget hearings because community groups have the ability to put a face and a story in context. But you have to frame the story for government officials such that it becomes apparent to them that not doing the thing you are advocating for is more painful than them [government] just doing whatever they want to do.” In return, it is the government’s responsibility to provide accessible, navigable platforms for the community to voice their concerns and incorporate as much of this feedback as possible into their decisions. Kaplan-Macey advises that establishing a participatory budgeting process is one way to give voice to the community on how federal funds should be spent and allow citizens and advocates alike to boost projects that improve safety and health outcomes for all.

However, it is important to keep in mind that all community engagement efforts mean next to nothing unless they are implemented proactively and continuously, not retroactively and temporarily. Kaplan-Macey says, ​“Infrastructure projects should be based on community plans. States need to look at existing plans and learn from them before moving forward with funding. Aligning investments and investing in smart places is fundamental. There needs to be an effort to pair infrastructure dollars with the communities that are most willing to accept them [evidenced by their willingness to change zoning, for example] and not forcing projects onto communities that don’t.” One example that Kaplan-Macey cites as a successfully planned infrastructure project is the pedestrian bridge in Bethel, Connecticut, one with good community engagement and sound local planning.

4. Myth: Federal funding = transit operations funding

Reality: A large portion of federal dollars are formula funds, which are usually allocated towards capital projects. Capital money goes towards construction and repair, but does not fund day-to-day operations in most cases. For example, capital funds could be allocated toward fixing a station or building a new rail line, but not the cost of running the transit service. The lack of available funding or subsidies from the federal government for operations causes public service challenges— particularly for public transit.

Many transit systems, including New York City’s MTA — the busiest transit provider in the country — rely heavily on revenue from fares and state subsidies to fund day-to-day operations. Financial problems can mean service cuts or high fare increases that disproportionately impact extremely low-income people (with household incomes of less than $15,000), who make up 21% of transit ridership nationwide but only 13% of the total US population.

To address this persistent issue, Kaplan-Macey feels it is important to ​“encourage states and municipalities to lean as much into the operating piece [of funding streams] as the capital piece.” Pursuing capital funding alone is not enough to ensure that infrastructure offers safe, reliable, affordable, and consistent day-to-day services for the public.

Transit operating funding challenges created by reduced ridership during the pandemic have also badly strained transit agency budgets, yet the three states in the region have reacted very differently to the agency funding deficits. New York recently passed legislation to generate $1.1 Billion to close the MTA’s looming fiscal cliff, a massive investment in the agency from various sources . While Connecticut has made some investments in its Bus Rapid Transit program, it also cut funding for the New Haven line operating expenses this year. On the other hand, New Jersey has largely ignored NJ Transit’s looming operating deficit, projected to be around $1 Billion by 2026.

5. Myth: ​“There no resources for accessing federal funding”

Reality: There are resources available and strategies for every community stakeholder to stay informed and have a say in where federal funding is allocated. Some of these resources and strategies are described in the next section. Educating the community on IIJA rollout and getting public feedback on infrastructure needs has been a challenge for government agencies and advocacy organizations. As Mehta has pointed out, ​“Public meetings held over Zoom were often not truly public due to disparities in broadband connection and the inability for people to fully participate in webinars.”

However, it is important to keep in mind that all community engagement efforts mean next to nothing unless they are implemented proactively and continuously, not retroactively and temporarily. Kaplan-Macey says, ​“Infrastructure projects should be based on community plans. States need to look at existing plans and learn from them before moving forward with funding. Aligning investments and investing in smart places is fundamental. There needs to be an effort to pair infrastructure dollars with the communities that are most willing to accept them [evidenced by their willingness to change zoning, for example] and not forcing projects onto communities that don’t.” One example that Kaplan-Macey cites as a successfully planned infrastructure project is the pedestrian bridge in Bethel, Connecticut, one with good community engagement and sound local planning.

Below is a list of resources for understanding, tracking, and accessing federal funds. To varying degrees, these resources can be used by nonprofits, local government agencies, and advocacy groups who care about improving health equity in their communities. While the resources listed are not all-inclusive, they offer an entry point into tackling the federal funding process and breaking it down into more concrete, actionable components.

Utilize technical assistance guides and playbooks

Grant application processes require a lot of time and effort to plan, coordinate, and write. Technical Assistance, commonly referred to as ​“TA,” can help you access and deploy federal funding while building your capacity to develop, design and deliver your plans and projects. Playbooks share a similar role, providing guidance and direction in understanding available federal funding.

Bipartisan Technical Assistance Guide

This White House Technical assistance guide contains a list of over 65 technical assistance resources and programs across the federal government. The guide is organized by types of infrastructure investments, such as clean energy and power, water, resilience, and environmental remediation. Each of these types include a description of the program, eligible participants, and information on how to get in touch.

Here are some agency specific technical assistance resources:

• Water Infrastructure Technical Assistance
  The Environmental Protection Agency created a free water technical assistance program to support communities to identify water challenges, develop plans, build technical, financial, and managerial capacity, and develop application materials to access water infrastructure funding.
• FTA-Sponsored Technical Assistance, Training, and Research Resource Programs
  The Federal Transit Administration, through workforce development and public transportation innovation programs, funds technical assistance, training, and research resource programs through national nonprofit organizations to improve public transportation. Nonprofit organizations are eligible as sub-recipients for funding, and can secure that funding through their state DOT.

Below is a list of playbooks released by the White House:

• Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Rural Playbook
  The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Rural Playbook serves as a resource for rural communities across the country. It helps rural communities understand the available funding for infrastructure provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
• Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Tribal Playbook
  The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Tribal Playbook serves as a resource for tribal communities across the country. The playbook identifies programs and sources of funds specifically set aside for Tribal communities under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and provides a guide to Tribal eligibility for other programs under the law.

However, like the infrastructure projects themselves that federal funding streams are financing, change does not happen overnight. Identifying a community’s needs, exploring existing plans, understanding the various federal programs available, advocating for funding to elected officials, implementing the infrastructure project once funding is secured, and seeing that project through to completion to ensure that it meets health equity goals remains both challenging and time consuming.

It is our hope that this post serves as a way to orient readers to what federal funding entails and offer strategies and resources for how they can show up in the process. It is also a step towards a more ideal scenario for federal infrastructure funding in this country. ​“In an ideal world, we would have really good community driven plans and regional capacity to work with local communities to figure out funding strategies and to work with the state to secure funding in a streamlined way to implement projects. We would work from the grassroots-up, and it would not be that complicated if the system were designed that way, to have design and infrastructure happening meaningfully from the community. It should not be that hard to align different resources to get projects moving,” says Kaplan-Macey.