What this series is meant to do is to pull back the curtain for people who assume that, when we make investments in infrastructure, the government is ultimately getting money back -- through new income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc... -- in an amount that exceeds the cost of the project. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This is a continuation of our in-depth look at the way that cost/benefit analyses are done to justify infrastructure spending, particularly in large grant programs such as the recent TIGER II. Today we are looking at the cost side of the equation.

This is a continuation of our in-depth look at the way that cost/benefit analyses are done. We are talking specifically here about a TIGER II project for an overpass in the city of Staples, MN. Today we're covering the safety, carbon reduction and maintenance arguments.

Last week we started our examination of the types of financial analysis that are done to justify infrastructure projects in typical funding programs such as TIGER II. Our analysis today focuses on a project in the city of Staples. The Staples project presents a mechanism to demonstrate, in depth, how a typical cost/benefit analysis is done.

Many people assume that, when we invest in infrastructure, "the government" gets back - by whatever means and at whatever level - cumulatively more money than it puts into a project. There are others who know that this is not remotely true.