PROJECTInfrastructure Equity at Urban

Body
project header photo
Project Navigation
  • Project Home
  • Staff
  • Publications


  • Federal investments in infrastructure—roads, public transit, housing, and other parts of the built environment—can improve quality of life by connecting communities, making housing more affordable, increasing energy efficiency, providing clean drinking water, and expanding broadband access. Yet too often, unfair funding allocations and negative externalities from these investments have deepened racial and social inequities.

    With recent legislation allocating billions in federal infrastructure investments, we are tracking how equitably federal funds are apportioned to and spent in communities. This page collects Urban Institute research and resources examining the equity of federal infrastructure spending. This body of work includes an interactive data tool, updated annually, showing investments across programs and geographies; reports examining federal infrastructure spending by fiscal year; program-specific case studies; equity-focused evaluations of different phases of the investment process; and recommendations to further equitable outcomes through infrastructure funding.

    Recent Findings

    Counties and municipalities with greater public administrative capacity are more likely to receive competitive awards from federal infrastructure programs. According to our analysis, local governments that had more staff and higher payroll expenditures were more likely to receive a competitive award from the federal government in fiscal year 2022 than local governments with less staffing capacity. In general, counties with larger budgets for transportation-related positions had a higher likelihood of receiving a competitive federal infrastructure grant and were more likely to receive more money if awarded a grant than counties with smaller transportation payrolls. Meanwhile, cities with the highest administrative budget capacities tended to receive larger average award amounts than cities with the lowest capacities. Read more: Local Governments with More Staff and Bigger Budgets Are More Likely to Win Federal Infrastructure Grants.

    Project funding through the RAISE program (formerly known as TIGER and BUILD) has varied by presidential administration, and administrations that prioritize equity have awarded more funding to disadvantaged neighborhoods. We analyzed RAISE program spending from 2009 to 2024, finding that under the Biden administration, the RAISE program increased funding to projects located in census tracts with high levels of poverty and other characteristics of burden and historic disinvestment. However, counties with a majority of people living in disadvantaged areas continue to struggle to apply for and win funding. The disadvantaged counties that do receive funding tend to receive larger per capita amounts than other counties, likely because many are rural with lower population densities. Both applicants and winning projects are typically located in counties and communities with higher shares of people of color, as well as higher incomes, though this does vary by administration. Our report also breaks down how the types of infrastructure prioritized under RAISE vary by administration, with greater investments in transit under Obama, road expansion under Trump, and pedestrian and cycling projects under Biden. Read more: Infrastructure Equity in Motion.
     

    Share of RAISE Awards Distributed to Projects in Disadvantaged Census Tracts
    Share of RAISE Awards Distributed to Projects in Disadvantaged Census Tracts

    Source: Author analysis of RAISE award data, including TIGER (2009–17) and BUILD (2018–20) data.

    Notes: Tracts classified as disadvantaged by the federal government. Roughly 33 percent of the nation’s population lived in these tracts in 2010.

    Research Areas Housing Race and equity State and local finance Neighborhoods, cities, and metros Land use
    Tags Equitable development Federal budget and economy Federal housing programs and policies Infrastructure Public and private investment Race and equity in grantmaking Environmental quality and pollution Transportation Housing and the economy State programs, budgets Land use and zoning
    Policy Centers Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center
    Research Methods Data collection Quantitative data analysis Web application development