Here is a response from Scott Smith, director strategic initiatives, HNTB Corporation

Relying on an underfunded Highway Trust Fund to support the complex transportation demands facing the United States is simply not practical. The current situation’s uncertainty makes it nearly impossible for departments of transportation to commit to large, multiyear projects or even raise the necessary bond money to complete them.

We appreciate the president’s recognition of the importance infrastructure spending plays in our country. The Obama administration’s proposed $129 billion budget for the U.S. Department of Transportation shows an understanding that such investments provide a foundation for economic growth and competitiveness by rebuilding the nation’s transportation systems, enabling innovative solutions to transportation challenges and ensuring the highest level of safety for all Americans.

The scope of our infrastructure challenges truly demands that all funding options be on the table.

A National Infrastructure Bank will help our country better consider its transportation investments in the context of a balanced, integrated multimodal system.

Thirty-four states already are exploring the potential of infrastructure banks. Those that have financed projects demonstrate financially healthy track records with good revenue streams. They also have learned valuable lessons that must be taken into account.

There are valid criticisms of previous NIB proposals, including efforts to limit the scope of the bank to simply include a revolving pool of federal funds, and the somewhat duplicative role programs like TIFIA already play. Yet this shouldn’t keep us from introducing such a tool at a national level – particularly at a time when TIFIA is oversubscribed. The goal should be to expand the amount of capital available to invest, not replace the mechanisms we already have in place. The administration’s $30 billion budget proposal is a good starting point.

If appropriate enabling legislation is passed with sufficient capitalization and adequate marketing activities – without cannibalizing existing funding sources – an NIB will increase the efficiency of federal transportation investments and encourage additional support of projects of regional significance that often are left out of current transportation efforts more closely aligned with needs at the state and municipal levels.

There are billions of dollars of private funding just waiting on the sidelines — we have to engage private investors. A National Infrastructure Bank will help us do just that.

Greg Principato perceptively asks: "Why do we need one [A National Infrastructure Bank] now?"

For aviation, why indeed? Cannot congested airports raise the funds they need by levying take-off and landing fees for the use of their congested runways? Are airport users so below the poverty line that they need to be rescued by the rest of us?

An "Infrastructure Fund" seems a nice way to reward political friends, and to finance unviable projects at taxpayer expense. But who, even in the White House, believes that "the administration would select only the best ideas for federal funding"? Would not existing public or private entities be financing the "best ideas" already?

The time is right for a National Infrastructure Bank; the concept has worked on the state level and can help us prioritize important investments. It also is time to re-energize the federal government’s role in infrastructure. For too long, we have watched infrastructure crumble and the economy slow. We must take the time and opportunity to create jobs, make our infrastructure safer, and keep the economy strong in the long-term. Our crumbling infrastructure can no longer support a thriving economy, or for that matter, a thriving public.

The Infrastructure Bank is just one vital piece in a suite of actions that must be made to get us back on the right path. We must pass an FAA reauthorization bill and write a comprehensive multi-year surface transportation bill that will improve safety, reduce congestion, address freight mobility, and restore and protect environmental quality. The Infrastructure Bank can be an integral part of the authorization to hone in on specific projects that seek to accomplish those goals in innovative and sustainable ways.

The biggest question we face is funding. The FY 12 budget proposes $5 billion for the Infrastructure Bank, and a total of $30 billion over six years – but what is the long-term funding plan? Will the bank continue to rely on general funds or will it become self-sustaining? Will we be able to match this new program with new revenue? If transportation investments must now be subjected to PAYGO, how will we address the long term viability of the gas tax? The more they propose, the more we have to question.

If the administration and Congress are really serious about winning the future with infrastructure, are they willing to ask people to pay a little more in the present?

Yes. But it’s far from a certainty, and there may be enough disagreement over how a bank would operate, so that it will not be included in reauthorization legislation.

An important factor giving momentum to a bank is that establishing a bank is a high priority in the Administration’s transportation program. This suggests that the Administration may be willing to make substantial compromises on the details in order to get some form of bank in the reauthorization bill. Moreover the basic concept of a “bank” is widely appealing, since it involves stretching federal revenues by using transportation tax revenues (or other revenue sources) to support loans and loan guarantees instead of grants. Also, there is precedent for a bank. An existing federal program, the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, operates like a bank by providing federal loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit for large transportation projects. There haven’t been strong objections to TIFIA.

So one would think that at a minimum, the Administration should be able to get a bank that continues TIFIA under a new name.

But it’s not that simple. The Administration is likely to want to go beyond TIFIA redux, and some in Congress may want also want to change the TIFIA concepts particularly if a federal loan program will be expanded well beyond the current TIFIA level of $1.5B level, with loans becoming a cornerstone of the federal transportation program.

Some key issues:

Who will administer the program?

TIFIA, which resembles an infrastructure bank, is now administered by DOT. TIFIA is a discretionary program that gives DOT broad authority to select which projects it will assist. During the Obama Administration, there has been

Republican criticism of DOT’s administration of other discretionary programs, such as TIGER and High Speed Rail, which give DOT wide discretion to allocate funds to the most meritorious projects. These criticisms could lead to objections to DOT being given broad discretionary authority in a new bank program.

The Administration may also want someone other than DOT to administer the program. The Administration may want the bank to be administered by a federal agency other than DOT or to function as a stand-alone entity. In the past, separation from other transportation programs has been an important element in infrastructure bank proposals, on the theory that management by someone other than DOT would result in more objective analysis of which projects are the most meritorious,

On the other side of the issue, there are likely to be strong objections in the Congress and the transportation community to having the bank run by anyone other than DOT. Many in Congress will feel that DOT is the agency with the expertise and responsibility to establish national transportation programs and priorities, and that DOT should administer a bank, or at least have the power to certify which projects can apply to the bank.

Will the bank award grants as well as loans?

If not, there is a serious question as to whether the bank will be an improvement over TIFIA. It calls to mind the World War II best seller, “How New Will the Better World be?” On the other hand, if the bank is authorized to award grants, this raises the stakes in the discussion of which agency will administer the program.

Will the bank grant assistance to non-transportation infrastructure (water, electricity, etc.) and will non-transportation and transportation infrastructure projects compete for loans.

Many of the infrastructure bank proposals of the past 20 years have emphasized the importance of evaluating all infrastructure proposals to determine which projects would provide the greatest benefits. But transportation stakeholders would be strongly opposed to competition with other infrastructure, particularly if the bank is supported by transportation tax revenues. As of now it is doubtful that the Administration will propose a structure with competition for loans between all forms of infrastructure

In short, an infrastructure bank raises considerable complexities. It should be one of the most interesting issues in transportation reauthorization.

The question of whether an Infrastructure Bank is an idea "ahead of its time" is an interesting one with many angles. In deference to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, there are "Knowns" and "Unknowns."

The major "Unknown" revolves around the idea of just what, exactly, a National Infrastructure Bank is. The transcontinental railroad and interstate highway system were built without one. Why do we need one now? I can come up with some reasons, mostly focused on trying to devise some sort of financing mechanism that allows everyone to say they didn't favor raising taxes. Because the greatest of ALL infrastructure "Knowns" is that you need money to build it.

It is "Unknown" whether this is an idea ahead, behind or right on time. When I was in state government in the 1980's, there was talk of a national infrastructure bank. This idea goes at least as far back as 1817, when President Madison in one of his last acts as president vetoed a bill he had once supported to use dividends from the Bank of the United States to support a financing mechanism for "internal improvements" (Madison changed positions because he was never quite sure whether the Constitution allowed for it; worth remembering today that even the Father of the Constitution sometimes struggled with such questions).

The biggest "Known" about infrastructure (aside from the point about money above) is that it spurs economic development and creates jobs (a job has been called the greatest social program ever devised). Unfortunately, in aviation, the job creating Airport Improvement Program, funded by users and not with general tax funds, is slated for cuts; while the ability of local communities to create local jobs by financing local projects using local resources is artificially and onerously limited by a non-sensical federal cap on airport user fees. And, until we get that right, by the way, there will be no NextGen! Got to land and takeoff and collect passengers somewhere! Unless this is all just some video game being played for the benefit of the airlines?

In aviation, then, the tools to meet the need in a locally generated, growth producing, job creating, non deficit inducing, way are already there. I do NOT understand why the federal government keeps limiting their use. Until that is explained to me, I'll withhold manning the barricades for an Infrastructure Bank.