Through this PPP, the Port Authority will continue operate the bridge and own toll revenues, but “it is for the benefit private sector attention to spread and leverage its assets to create this project,” Zukerman said, calling it an “availability payment project,” where the private investor would need to maintain the bridge for a fixed amount of time, while the public sector would pay the investor back with interest.

Successful projects also share risk appropriately and plan for long-term maintenance. “What PPPs do is generate alternative financing, but they are not the growth of the revenue pie,” Zukerman said. “The revenue pie needs to be increased for infrastructure that’s needed--whether that’s for user fees or taxes--the private sector eventually will need to get paid by the government, but be willing to look at the facility’s fares or tariffs or tolls and evaluate those and say they are willing to take that risk. It will not generate new revenues, but it does generate new financing.”

And with little consensus about whether states, cities or the federal government should take the reigns when dealing with the nation’s infrastructure, PPPs are emerging as a tool governments can use to help projects move forward. And because 85% of the US population live in metro centers, new infrastructure is critically needed to help accommodate the growing population, McAvey said. “When we look at pending legislation, the prospects are not as ambitious as we would like,” she said. “We use the phrase stuck in neutral," describing the national conversation as “lots of talk” and “no action" on federal highway trust funds and new programs.

Meanwhile, the international community is gaining speed. China will spend $1 trillion laying the foundation for high-speed rail projects, adding 10,000 miles of new track by 2020; in addition, they will construct an improved nationwide system of highways, airports and a number of new urban transit systems. India is spending $1 billion over the next five years on the New Delhi Metro Rail Network. “The East is eclipsing the West in terms of spending," said Malcolm Bairstow, global construction and infrastructure leader at Ernst & Young.

Other countries like Brazil are spending $900 billion over three years investing in a high-speed rail link connecting Rio De Janeiro and Sao Paulo, in preparation to handle the volume of visitors expected to attend the 2016 Olympic Games. The UK has committed to $326 billion--despite an austerity budget--over the next five years for projects related to rail, transit and energy.

While lower tax revenues have hurt the US, local governments are “cutting back” or “putting projects on hold” by simply trying to keep up with demand, McAvey said. But strong anti-tax sentiment and less support is also a factor in Amercia’s infrastructure decline. Three states--including Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin--have rejected federal funds for high-speed rail construction. In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie scrapped plans for the $8.7-billion ARC Tunnel project, which would have expanded rail service from New Jersey to New York City; $600 million of work was already completed in North Bergen there.

Elsewhere in the New York metropolitan area, the MTA is investing $17 billion in the expansion of the 2^nd Avenue subway and a new transit hub in Lower Manhattan. McAvey also noted that Tappan Zee Bridge is also in need of improvements, coming in at price tag of $17 billion.

But in the long-term, alternative funding sources must be found to support the region. “Infrastructure is truly the backbone of the economy, and in many ways we are neglecting it,” she said.