By late 2024, three years after the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act became law, the federal government had committed $275.1 billion to specific projects and actually spent $119.4 billion of the $580.6 billion allocated through 2025.
These figures illustrate the substantial gap between congressional authorization and actual construction.
The difference matters to communities waiting for infrastructure improvements. Bridges deteriorate further. Road conditions worsen. Every year that federal dollars remain unspent effectively reduces their purchasing power as construction costs rise.
Private infrastructure firms such as American Infrastructure Partners have built business models around trying to fill this gap, positioning themselves to deliver projects that avoid getting mired in bureaucracy.
The Appropriation-to-Construction Pipeline
Federal infrastructure funding moves through distinct stages before reaching construction sites. Congress appropriates funds. Federal agencies transfer money to states through formula allocations or competitive grants. State agencies identify specific projects and obligate funds. Environmental reviews proceed. Procurement happens. Grant agreements get signed. Construction begins. Payments flow.
Each stage introduces delays. Transportation construction put-in-place generally lags federal highway outlays by roughly 18 months or more, according to Citi Research analysis from May 2025. Sequential bottlenecks mean appropriated funds often take years to translate into physical infrastructure improvements.
Why Federal Dollars Move Slowly
A Government Accountability Office survey of IIJA discretionary grant recipients found common challenges. National Environmental Policy Act reviews require extensive documentation and public comment periods. Buy America provisions mandate domestic sourcing for iron, steel, and manufactured products, limiting supplier options and potentially increasing costs. Inflation erodes purchasing power while projects wait for approvals.
Approximately 23% of surveyed recipients of fiscal year 2022 discretionary grants still lacked signed grant agreements when responding between December 2024 and March 2025—more than two years after funds were initially announced. Without executed agreements, no construction can begin and no money changes hands.
State Departments of Transportation face steep learning curves navigating the IIJA grant programs. The 1,000-plus page legislation created numerous new competitive programs requiring detailed applications. Unlike formula funding that flows automatically based on established criteria, competitive grants demand that agencies demonstrate project merit against evaluation criteria while coordinating multiple federal approvals.
Two years into his tenure, transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg characterized the implementation timeline in Congressional testimony. "If our first year was about the bill passing, and the second year was about the programs' launching, this is about the money moving so we can get the dirt flying,” he said.
This measured approach prioritizes proper program design over rapid disbursement, in contrast to American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus spending that emphasized shovel-ready projects.
Private Capital’s Timelines
Private firms don’t necessarily have to wait for federal appropriations or navigate multi-year grant competitions. Firms like American Infrastructure Partners can make investment decisions based on project economics and local need, compressing timelines by eliminating layers of approvals.
American Infrastructure Partners’ platform approach creates specialized teams with experience in particular asset classes. United Bridge Partners understands bridge engineering, finance, and operations. This concentration allows rapid evaluation of opportunities and efficient project execution, competing on expertise rather than lowest initial cost.
United Bridge Partners completed the Jordan Bridge in Chesapeake, Virginia, under budget while the state had projected replacement costs exceeding $200 million and was facing budget constraints that could have delayed action further.
This speed advantage derives from fundamentally different decision-making processes. Public infrastructure projects require legislative appropriations, administrative rule-making, competitive procurement, and multiple approval stages across federal, state, and local governments. Private projects need investor approval, local permits, and financing commitments—fewer decision points involving fewer stakeholders.
UBP’s Houbolt Road Extension project in Joliet, Illinois, established new Interstate 80 access through private financing rather than waiting in the queue for state highway funds. Had the project relied on federal grants, it would have competed against thousands of other applications for limited discretionary dollars, with no guarantee of selection.
Pennsylvania's Rapid Bridge Replacement program repaired 558 bridges in four years through a public-private partnership—work that might have taken over a decade using traditional approaches. This acceleration came through bundling multiple small projects into one large contract that attracted private capital and incentivized fast delivery. But the contract's financial terms generated controversy about whether the state paid a premium for speed.
Different Tools for Different Circumstances
Federal infrastructure funding makes sense for projects with broad public benefits that can't generate private returns: rural highways serving sparse populations, municipal water systems in economically disadvantaged areas, transit serving low-income riders. These investments meet social needs that market mechanisms won't address.
Private infrastructure firms target different opportunities that might not receive the same level of federal attention, and that are mutually beneficial to the community served and to investors in the projects.
The $3.7 trillion infrastructure funding gap projected through 2033 exceeds what either public or private sectors can address alone. Federal spending moves slowly but provides subsidized capital for projects serving broad public purposes. Private capital can move more efficiently but demands financial returns and works best for projects with clear revenue streams.
Firms like American Infrastructure Partners don't replace federal infrastructure programs. The firm provides an alternative for communities where federal funding timelines don't align with urgent needs, where project types fit private finance models, or where local officials prefer private partnerships over waiting for competitive grants. The Jordan Bridge got built when it did because private capital was available. Without that option, Chesapeake would likely still be waiting.
IIJA implementation will continue through 2026, with the remaining $131.2 billion in appropriations becoming available for obligation in fiscal year 2026. State and local agencies are learning to navigate new grant programs and expedite project delivery. Private infrastructure firms are scaling their operations to capitalize on opportunities that federal programs don't address quickly enough.
The question isn't whether federal or private infrastructure funding is superior. They serve different functions. Federal dollars support projects that markets won't fund efficiently. Private capital accelerates projects where investment returns justify private involvement. Communities benefit when both options exist, allowing local officials to match funding mechanisms to specific project characteristics rather than waiting in a single queue.
