مدیریت دارایی : چاره اندیشی برای مقابله با چالش های مالیاتی پیش روی زیرساخت های بزرگراهی

In recent years, increasing claims have been advanced for asset management as a promising new approach to infrastructure management. If these claims are seen in the light of past management fads, such as zero-based-budgeting (ZBB), management-by-objectives (MBO), total quality management (TQM), and business process reengineering (BPR), asset management may be considered the latest in a long line of management fads being marketed by consultants to transportation agency managers. However, asset management can be an effective response to the fiscal challenges confronting the United States' highway infrastructure. This paper explores asset management in light of recent developments in the funding, condition, documentation, and management of the US highway infrastructure. The paper begins with a discussion of capital biases associated with traditional US federal highway funding programs. It then describes the advent of innovative financing approaches that have evolved in response to the inability of the Federal Highway Trust Fund to meet burgeoning highway renewal and replacement needs, caused in part by widespread deferred maintenance of the highway system. The paper suggests that public sources of funding for the highway system will not be adequate to renovate or replace current highways and build new capacity. Closing the expected shortfall in public highway funding will require sustained infusions of private sector funding. However, the financing of highways through public–private partnerships will require state and local transportation agencies to radically change the ways in which the highway infrastructure is managed. Within the context of gradual changes in highway management and financing, the paper suggests a critical role for asset management – in demonstrating prudent stewardship of highway infrastructure and facilitating private sector confidence in highway investments. The paper examines the implications for innovative highway financing resulting from recent developments in asset management: • further devolution of highway program and funding responsibilities to state and local levels of government; • developments in asset management processes and practices; and • the infrastructure reporting requirements recently developed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The infrastructure reporting requirements of GASB's Statement No. 34 are intended to increase accountability for publicly owned infrastructure and promote improved management of long-lasting capital assets. GASB 34 also provides a basis for enabling public agencies to finance implementation of asset management techniques and renewal of infrastructure assets through securitization. Covenants associated with securitized highway bonds would provide the fiscal discipline needed to ensure that responsible agencies abide by the terms of the bond agreements – thereby assuring preventive asset maintenance and freeing up resources for debt service payments. Shadow tolling provides a useful mechanism for generating a positive revenue stream to support securitized highway bonds. The paper concludes that asset management is a proven and essential process for helping the US rebuild and expand its highway infrastructure.

In recent years, increasing claims have been advanced for asset management as a promising new approach to infrastructure management (McNeil et al., 2000). If these claims are seen in the light of past management fads, such as zero-based-budgeting (ZBB), management-by-objectives (MBO), total quality management (TQM), and business process reengineering (BPR), asset management may be considered the latest in a long line of management fads being marketed by consultants to transportation agency managers. However, asset management can be an effective response to the fiscal challenges confronting the US highway infrastructure. This paper explores these issues in light of recent developments in the funding, condition, documentation, and management of the US national highway infrastructure. The paper suggests: • Public sources of funding for the US highway system will not be adequate to renovate or replace current highways, and build new capacity. • Closing the expected shortfall in public highway funding will require sustained infusions of private sector funding. • Financing of highways through public–private partnerships will require state and local transportation agencies to radically change the ways in which highway infrastructure is managed. • Asset management has a critical role in demonstrating prudent stewardship of highway infrastructure and facilitating private sector confidence in highway investments. The paper concludes that asset management is a proven and essential process for helping the US's rebuild and expand its highway infrastructure.

Currently trillions of dollars in public infrastructure are not reflected in the financial statements of state and local governments. As a result, these assets are considered sunk costs whose only financial significance is the drain they represent on the maintenance budgets of state and local infrastructure agencies. Traditional highway funding arrangements have favored capital expenditures for new construction by leaving maintenance funding responsibilities to state and local governments. The availability of relatively cheaper capital funds from the federal government has inadvertently encouraged state and local governments to defer maintenance on their highway systems over the past 40 years. This has produced higher life-cycle costs for highway infrastructure when compared to proper asset preservation. Highway assets should be viewed as tangible assets whose inherent value can be used to stimulate further economic activity, instead of only sunk costs. Asset management provides state and local governments the opportunity to demonstrate stewardship of their highway infrastructure. Asset management also provides the impetus for establishing innovative techniques for financing highway development, preservation, and documentation. Supporting the concept of asset management, the infrastructure reporting requirements of GASB 34 represent a major impetus for change in the way public infrastructure is financed, developed, managed, and documented across the US. Taking the form of financial reporting requirements, GASB 34 has the potential to bring together disparate groups involved in supporting highway programs. These include finance, engineering, maintenance, and operations personnel, which have traditionally functioned independently of each other. The potential consequences of GASB 34 can be more far-reaching than merely achieving compliance with GAAP. They include significant reductions in long-term costs of highway programs, opportunities for innovative financing of asset management and highway infrastructure renewal, and use of reporting information to establish national spatial databases for highway infrastructure. How state and local jurisdictions respond to these new reporting requirements will determine their success in leveraging the scarce resources available for highway development and preservation. Those who seek merely to comply with the minimum requirements of GASB 34 will benefit little from the exercise. Those who structure their response around the needs of both infrastructure managers and users will reap significant benefits in terms of extended highway service lives, reduced replacement costs, and better information with which to manage these critical assets. Because of the long timeframe needed to demonstrate the benefits of asset management and preservation, many decision makers may be reluctant to embrace its tenets and principles. This is particularly true for elected and appointed officials of state and local governments, whose terms of office limit their ability to focus on long-term consequences. This is why it is essential that some way be found to realize the long-term benefits of highway asset management in the short term. Securitization of highway infrastructure provides such a mechanism by using the resources of the private finance community to provide up-front funds to pay for the costs of developing and implementing asset management approaches and systems, rehabilitating highway assets that could be more cost-effectively preserved if renewed, and responding to GASB 34's infrastructure reporting requirements. Highway securitization bond financing represents a win–win situation for state and local officials, technical staffs, contractors, construction workers, and the public by enabling highway managers to become better stewards of their assets. Increasing the level of investments in highway infrastructure requires expanding the size of the investment pool. While many of the innovative financing strategies contained in TEA-21 are very useful and timely, they alone cannot fill the gap in highway infrastructure needs. In particular, techniques like GARVEE Bonds only speed up the availability of committed Federal Highway Trust Funds. Financing strategies that increase the sources and levels of highway investment are needed, and the private sector represents a major supplier of these funds. However, certain conditions will need to be met before private sector investment revenues flow into public highway infrastructure. Innovative financing approaches that rely on private sector investment will require careful consideration and balancing of the attendant risks and returns. Securitization of highway infrastructure without a defined positive revenue source (such as a toll or tax) will require both the private finance community and the responsible jurisdictions to redefine how they view infrastructure assets. Shadow tolling provides a possible mechanism for generating the positive revenue stream needed to support highway securitization bonds. The growing willingness of the private sector to enter into partnerships with the public sector to expedite the development or expansion of needed highway facilities is an important development. Nurturing public–private partnerships to address the challenges facing the US highway system will require concerted and collective efforts that go beyond traditional approaches to infrastructure funding and development. The impetus provided by GASB 34's infrastructure-reporting requirements will encourage those jurisdictions with vision and creativity to institute asset management and innovative financing strategies that fully leverage their capabilities and resources. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Florida Department of Transportation, and Florida Turnpike are showing the way to a more responsible and cost-effective highway infrastructure program. Increased accountability, life-cycle asset management, and public–private partnerships are being applied to demonstrate proper stewardship for the US' highway assets. Only by changing the traditional ways of doing business and embracing such innovative techniques will public highway agencies in the US attract the level of private investment needed to meet both present challenges and future needs