This is the third in a series of three blogs on cities, technology, the next generation of urban development, and the next administration. In the first, l discussed Hillary Clinton’s recent technology plan and in particular, the significance of her endorsement of, and a willingness to invest in, a “civic Internet of Things.” In the second, I laid out why the federal government should focus on how cities are likely to be the primary government jurisdictions on the leading edge of using new technology to transform the public sphere. In this final installment, I propose five specific policies for how either a Clinton or Trump administration could accelerate economic growth and social progress by helping cities use emerging technologies. (As a member of the Clinton Technology Advisory Group, I had an opportunity to propose and review some of her proposals. The ideas I present here are mine and do not reflect the views of the committee or of the Brookings Institution.)

As the candidates lay out their plans for the country, cities and technology should be at the heart of the conversation about economic growth and social progress. They should articulate both a strategy and specific ideas about how to accelerate the ability of cities to use new technology to achieve those goals. Here are five such ideas.

A PCAST for cities

The federal government has the scale to attract support from the brightest minds in a number of fields, particularly technology. This process is done in multiple ways, but most notably through the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), which identifies trends, risks, and opportunities emanating from science and technology that should inform federal government actions.

Cities generally lack the scale for such independent advice but are in no less need of it, as evidenced by a recent PCAST report on cities and technology. A single report, however, is not the same as a sustained effort. We need a long-term institution dedicated to helping cities understand the impact of directions in science and technology.

To bring a constant focus to the opportunity, the new administration should convene a Mayors’ Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (MCAST) that similarly serves to identify trends, risks, and opportunities for cities to deliver its services faster, better and cheaper. While there are many related efforts to attempt to evangelize a best-practices approach, an MCAST would have the ability to both analyze the opportunities and disseminate information in a way that current, fragmented efforts cannot.

An access initiative

As we look back at the history of communications networks, the deployment of networks capable of offering faster, better, and cheaper services always requires a new capital-allocation decision. This is generally done by a private-sector party but often follows government decisions that lower the cost of deployment or operations and/or increase potential revenue and competition. The 1978 Pole Attachment Act, for example, sparked an investment wave into cable systems by allowing cable to attach to utility poles. More recently, the fiber network deployments and upgrades by Google, AT&T and CenturyLink were stimulated by a variety of agreements between cities and the providers that improve the economics of the investments.

A continuing challenge, however, lies in assuring access to essential facilities. There are three basic categories: government-controlled inputs, such as spectrum at the federal level and rights of way at the local level; quasi-public essential facilities such as utility poles and certain kinds of intellectual property developed through standards-setting bodies; and private assets that have become essential. Examples of these include the cable programming regulated under the 1992 Cable Act, the unbundled network elements at the heart of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the business data services facilities currently being debated by the Federal Communications Commission.

This is not a simple task. Nonetheless, Congress specifically told the FCC that it was responsible for the deployment of advanced communications networks and that it should “take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment.” In other words, if the FCC thinks such deployment is too slow—and the current commission clearly believes it is—it ought to inquire whether there are barriers that ought to be removed.

I’m not certain of the answer but, having worked with various efforts to provide facilities-based competition, I suspect such an inquiry should, at a minimum, look at poles, entry to multiple-dwelling units, or MDUs, and a new set of spectrum and data issues.

As to poles, there is some existing regulation. Nonetheless, the cost and time required to attach to poles create obstacles to new deployments. The current rules often require multiple construction crews to do what one crew could do. Just as both national and local governments are wisely adopting “dig once” policies for deploying below streets, we ought to explore a similar vision of “climb once” or “one touch” policies.

With MDUs, we have banned exclusive access agreements but we still have many MDUs where as a practical matter the residents cannot exercise free choice. The FCC should consider whether the failure to provide residents such a right creates a barrier to broadband deployment, in violation of Congress’ mandate.

A third inquiry involves unlicensed spectrum and the civic Internet of Things. Multiple parties, including cities, use unlicensed spectrum for a myriad of purposes. In the near future, we will have to assure that the access to the spectrum, as well as locations for antennas and perhaps even certain kind of data, is fair and serves the public interest.

A tax/next-generation network investment deal

There is a bipartisan consensus that our tax code needs updating to reflect changes in the economy since the last comprehensive reform thirty years ago. The chances for such a bill are not high; neither are they non-material. In that light, cities should advocate that any such effort ought to be used to accelerate investment in next generation, long-term infrastructure.

A traditional way is accelerated depreciation of specified investment, such as in capital facilities that achieve defined next-generation capabilities like fiber next-generation sensors. Another way, unique at this moment, is to cut a deal in which the law allows some of the $2 trillion currently offshore to be repatriated on the condition that a portion of it is invested in next-generation infrastructure. As those funds largely belong to tech companies who benefit from next-generation network investments, there is an alignment of interests that might make that which today seem impossible, inevitable.

As with any tax debate, we’ll need to address issues of fairness and efficiency. Further, there are a number of other issues that are likely to be discussed that will affect technology and cities such as sales taxes on e-commerce. But if cities don’t have ideas about how such legislation will help them obtain next generation facilities, the legislation is more likely to be unfair and inefficient. As noted in the hit musical “Hamilton,” cities have to be “in the room where it happens” with ideas for how to drive capital into building the infrastructure they need.

A government IP transition with an adoption surge

The FCC recently reformed the Lifeline program, which provides support for low-income individuals to stay on critical information networks.

But this is not just about helping low-income people. It helps everyone. As a group of 44 mayors and city officials wrote in support of the reforms: “Getting more low-income households online will help modernize delivery of public services—facilitating more responsive and effective governance while lowering overheads for local government.”  

The same would be true for federal government. A high-tech CEO group estimated the savings of transitioning the federal government to a more efficient digital platform to be $1 trillion 10 years.

We should pursue that transition through a commission with the same structure as a base-closing commission. It should be given a mandate to make a series of recommendations that Congress would review on an up-or-down basis. The federal government taking the leadership role in making such changes will accelerate market forces that will make it easier and cheaper for cities to do the same.

But as we make this transition, it is critical that we assist everyone who wants to be on the network. Thus, the recommendations should include that the government dedicates, in advance of the actual savings, a portion of those savings to accelerate adoption, such as through funding a higher Lifeline subsidy, as well as a temporary digital-literacy service corps that would help those lacking the skills to benefit from online services.

The next administration should move the United States to the top tier in e-government delivery and broadband adoption. In doing so, it would lay the groundwork for improving the performance of every municipal government.

In-Q-Tel4Equity

When the mass market internet emerged 20 years ago, many hoped it would lead to increased social equity. It was not irrational for us to believe that a medium in which the cost of distribution is zero could lead to a world in which the best products become available to all. After all, the Silicon Valley billionaire and any impoverished child with internet access probably use the same search engine and same apps. As Wired magazine noted, refugees fleeing Syria often have the same smartphone as those in the 1 percent.

But we would have to be blind to believe social equity has improved in the last 20 years. As others have noted, venture capital has largely focused on addressing the pain points of the most well-off, not the least well-off.

After 20 years of hoping market forces would produce such apps, it is time to be more intentional. When the CIA came to believe it needed to be more intentional about the direction of technology, they created a VC fund called In-Q-Tel, opened an office in Silicon Valley, and provided venture capital to tap commercial technology. The Pentagon recently followed with its own Silicon Valley office and fund. They are investing in technology they are interested in buying, and thus they both make money on the investment side and accelerate the deployment of technology they want.

The federal government should do the same to tap developing technology to address the needs of low-income communities in health, education, job training, and other areas. While there are good, voluntary existing efforts, nothing concentrates the entrepreneurs’ mind like some old-fashioned venture capital.

I cannot predict which of these five ideas—or which better ideas—will gain currency. I can predict that ideas that are not in the debate soon are unlikely to be adopted in the next administration’s first term. I can also predict that if the next administration does not help cities find ways to use technology to generate economic growth and social progress, it will not achieve those same goals for the country.

The time to start generating ideas—and support for them—is now.

      

 

 

This is the second in a series of three blog posts on cities, technology, the next generation of urban development, and the next administration. In the first, I discussed Hillary Clinton’s recent technology plan and, in particular, the significance of her endorsement of, and willingness to, invest in a “civic Internet of Things.” In this one, I lay out why the federal government should focus on how cities are likely to be the primary government jurisdictions on the leading edge of using new technology to transform the public sphere. In the third, I will suggest five specific policies for how either a Clinton or Trump administration could accelerate economic growth and social progress by helping cities use emerging technologies. (As a member of the Clinton Technology Advisory Group, I had an opportunity to propose and review some of her proposals. The ideas I present here are mine and do not reflect the views of the committee or of the Brookings Institution.)

Hillary Clinton recently laid out her technology platform and, as I noted here, endorsed support for a civic Internet of things, the next generation infrastructure project that will be largely built by cities.

Are there other ways in which the next administration can help cities adopt technology to create the next generation of urban development? I recently spoke on this topic to several conferences of city officials and while the answer is yes, the debate is still nascent. (My full remarks can be found here.)

Part of the challenge in answering is we don’t know who will be the next president. Further, the political variations of potential outcomes are great. The presidency, Congress, and the Courts could all shift, with a wide ideological delta.

Another challenge is that federal officials focus on federal policy, or, sometimes, federal-state policy, but they rarely venture into a discussion of cities.

This neglect of federal-municipal policy is a mistake for many reasons, but the primary one is that the aspirations articulated on the campaign trail cannot be achieved without thriving cities. For example, all candidates talk about improving the economy, but American cities will lead our economy, as cities do around the world. Today more than 80 percent of the population in the United States lives in metropolitan areas, generating more than 90 percent of the country’s GDP. Both those numbers are likely to rise.

Further, the cities that will lead the most are those that take the greatest advantage of the macrotrends that have the ability to stimulate economic growth and social progress. In my estimation, the biggest such trend is how information, as an input to every product and service, is increasing in importance, transformed by massive improvements in data storage, computing power, and communications.

For cities, these trends are not just about broadband networks; they are about the next generation of broadband-led urban development. Just as technology is transforming agriculture, retail, manufacturing, and every other sector of the economy, technology is also transforming the way our society, and particularly cities, address the mission of providing vibrant communities in which individuals and families can thrive.

While the current short-term, news-cycle-driven attention span and resulting dysfunction in Washington may well continue, cities continue to take long-term actions. As my Brookings colleague Bruce Katz recently wrote, “since their inception, cities have been built to invest in the future—in quality, enduring infrastructure to move people, goods, energy, and ideas; in the creation of authentic and vibrant places and destinations; and in the schooling and skilling of people to help them reach their full potential. “

We shouldn’t be Pollyannaish about this. Cities are highly constrained in terms of resources. Too often, cities use deferred maintenance on infrastructure as a budget tool. Faced with choosing to use limited dollars to plug a pothole or install new sensors, most are going to plug the hole. Still, in terms of leading governments in adopting the new tools of service delivery, cities are more likely to do more sooner than is the federal government.

Above all, cities are the key catalyst in driving improvements in the next-generation opportunity. As I noted recently in light of the courts upholding the FCC’s reclassification of internet service providers as common carriers, the federal government plays the essential role in defense of a competitive market structure and consumer rights. But the country also has an agenda I liken to offense, specifically of assuring affordable, abundant broadband everywhere, getting all Americans online, and using the platform to improve the delivery of public goods and services. For each of these three efforts, cities are best positioned to take on the challenge.

In that light, the fall campaign should set an agenda for how the next administration can move the country forward by helping the cities that want to lead in this century’s city-led, global information economy.  Some might argue that how cities use technology should not be a subject of a presidential election but rather be left to local campaigns. This argument is wrong for a number of reasons, including that the economic and social health of cities is the leading driver of the economic and social health of the nation. American leadership in many sectors requires world-class cities in which to work and live. Further, cities face a subtle economic barrier to adoption of new technologies. The history of technology cost curves predicts these investments will eventually pay for themselves in service improvements. Cities, however, unlike businesses, have a limited first-user advantage for such new infrastructure, making it more difficult to obtain the critical mass of users that lowers costs in ways that accelerate adoption. If wealthier communities like Austin can figure out how to use technology to improve how it delivers education, health, transportation, and social services, those practices can be adopted by lower-income communities like Detroit. The federal government has a vital interest in accelerating the improvement of municipal public services by all cities. The best way to drive such improvements is to seed early efforts that provide replicable examples.

In my next blog post, I will offer five ideas that come out of work I have done with the various communities. None fall neatly into a traditional red/blue divide; all are consistent with various statements of each of the presumptive nominees. Further, they reflect something I learned directing a presidential transition team. Rather than proposing an answer, one is better off aligning a mission with an institution, an inquiry, or an investment. For example, the country is currently running a complicated spectrum auction (known as the incentive auction) that will likely reallocate more low-band spectrum to the critical mobile broadband market than any other single government action. The idea first emerged in 2008 but by itself gained no traction. Subsequently, however, the National Broadband Plan publicly laid out the risks of a future spectrum crunch, and then articulated how the incentive auction was the best of all alternatives to avoid that crunch, the idea became the centerpiece of the only telecommunications legislation to pass Congress during the Obama presidency.

I will also suggest some institutions, inquiries, and investments that could lead to improved outcomes. More important, I hope these ideas accelerate a conversation that leads to both presidential teams understanding the value in supporting cities that are building, and building on, the core platform of the 21^st century global information economy.

      

 

 

This is the first in a series of three blogs on cities, technology, the next generation of urban development, and the next administration. In this one, I’ll discuss Hillary Clinton’s recent technology plan and in particular, the significance of her endorsement of, and a willingness to invest in, a civic Internet of Things.” In the second, I will lay out why the federal government should focus on how cities are likely to be the primary government jurisdictions on the leading edge of using new technology to transform the public sphere. In the third, I will suggest five specific policies for how either a Clinton or Trump Administration could accelerate economic growth and social progress by helping cities use emerging technologies. (As a member of the Clinton Technology Advisory Group, I had an opportunity to propose and review some of her proposals. The ideas I present here are mine and do not reflect the views of the committee or of the Brookings Institution.)

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton recently laid out her technology plan. A number of the ideas represent the continuation and expansion of current Obama administration strategies of increased broadband deployment and adoption. Others call for reinvigorated efforts for education and training related to technology and innovation in government. From a political perspective, the most significant policy is probably the call to protect the FCC’s decision to reclassify internet service providers as Title II common carriers, as that is one technology issue where the presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has taken a clear and contrary point of view.

From the perspective of cities, however, the most significant policy may be Clinton’s endorsement of the civic Internet of Things. In a section entitled “Foster a Civic Internet of Things through Public Investments,” her plan states that her administration will invest federal research funding to testbedding, field trials, and other public-private endeavors to speed the deployment of next generation wireless networks and a civic Internet of Things. She also commits to using advances in wireless communications and data analytics to improve public safety, health care, environmental management, traffic congestion, and social welfare services.

Why is this proposal so significant? The Internet of Things itself refers to the ability of devices, equipped with far greater computing power and connected to the Cloud and each other through far greater bandwidth, to provide a greater awareness of a situation and to act to improve outcomes. These developments are already having a dramatic impact on how we manufacture goods, in what is generally referred to as the industrial Internet of Things.

The civic Internet of Things is, at one level, simply adding intelligent devices to a number of infrastructure systems generally run by cities, including, but not limited to water, sewer, power, and transportation. It also creates new opportunities to improve the data on which decisions are made in areas such as public safety, public health, and social services.

At a deeper level, however, the civic Internet of Things is this generation’s opportunity to recreate the commons at the heart of all cities. Cities began with the understanding that humans could improve their lives with common facilities, starting with markets and defense. These common undertakings grew into other areas, from transportation to schools to recreational facilities, among many others. The civic Internet of Things can be the next great innovation, unlocking new ways to activate civic engagement—one of the fundamental components of the democratic enterprise—and to deliver public goods and services.

These opportunities raise many new issues. These initiatives will require new investments in physical capital, such as bandwidth and sensors. While technology cost curves suggest these investments will eventually pay for themselves in service improvements, cities—unlike businesses—have a limited first-user advantage for such networks, making it more difficult to accelerate their adoption. Even once up and running, I’ve previously noted that cities will still need to address related questions. How do they assure the data will be used to decrease, and not widen, existing patterns of social inequity? How should cities make the data accessible to private users? How should cities partner with private sector entities to improve their performance, but in ways that avoid creating data monopolies?

Despite the challenges, cities should welcome the opportunity before them. Further, they should welcome the acknowledgement from at least one of the candidates (and, one can hope, eventually both of the candidates) that American leadership in the world will require world-leading cities—and that status can only be achieved with a world-leading civic Internet of Things. At the same time, federal officials should look to cities as the path through which the aspirations they articulate on the campaign trail will actually be achieved. That’s the topic of the next installment.

      

 

 

The recent Court of Appeals decision upholding the FCC decision to classify broadband providers as common carriers is a huge personal victory for President Obama and FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. It’s also a huge institutional victory for the FCC, establishing a clear foundation for it to establish rules for communications networks in the broadband era.

What does this mean for the future of the nation’s broadband agenda? Some claim the heart of agenda is price regulation. I disagree.  The core of common carrier obligations is non-discrimination. The FCC now has power to protect consumers from the harmful effects of network content discrimination.

Such protection is critical. It is also fundamentally defensive. That is, it can protect against bad things, but it cannot compel good things. There are other FCC efforts, such as privacy protections, that similarly seek to prevent harm.

Just like a good football team, however, policy needs to know how to play both offense and defense.

The country is making progress on the first front. It has a three-pronged broadband agenda: getting affordable, abundant bandwidth everywhere, getting everyone online, and using the platform to better deliver public goods and services.  Here, cities play a more significant role.

Incumbents and others predicted a suppression of investment in next generation networks as a result of the FCC classification, but it is hard to make that case in light of recent announcements by AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and others deploying next generation networks. (Another indication of the limited impact on their businesses is those three stocks outperformed the market the day of the court decision.) Google Fiber drove a considerable share of the progress, and also required cities to adopt a wide variety of policies that lowered deployment costs. Further progress depends on more cities doing so, as well as non-incumbents expanding their efforts.

The country also made progress on adoption, most significantly the FCC’s recent reforms to Lifeline. The FCC took significant steps to remove the primary cause of the fraud—carrier certification of recipients—while also making broadband a supported service. It will take several years to determine whether the change actually increases broadband penetration, which has recently stalled, but achieving universal adoption will take more than federal efforts. It requires sustained local, community-based efforts as well.

The U.S. has also made improvements to public services at the federal, state and local levels. Indeed, the whole smart city movement, dealing with improvements in transportation, energy, water and sewer, and human services builds those services on top of better networks.

On the federal side, much of this agenda will carry over to the next administration, which will also confront a number of emerging issues related to cybersecurity, the Civic Internet of Things, digital equity, and next generation wireless. The country should debate the best approaches, but regardless of political leanings this election cycle, Americans ought to agree that the country can’t be great without great broadband. Nor can America be great if the government has to deliver critical services like education, public safety, transportation, among others, using the tools of the 20^th century, instead of the tools of the 21^st.

The foundation is now laid for the FCC to assure critical consumer protections. The next step is to establish networks and improve adoption, creating an environment where bandwidth never constrains economic and social progress.

      

 

 

The technology and political worlds collided last month when some conservatives accused Facebook of suppressing conservative political views. This issue continues to evolve, as the social media platform addressed the concerns with a private roundtable with leading conservative voices and further promises to reform its “Trending Topics” news section.

I believe that, while Facebook did the right thing by its shareholders, comforting its critics swept under the rug a number of constitutional and regulatory issues related to big data platforms. Unlike Facebook, local government will eventually have to face those issues head-on.

Cities were not involved with this particular controversy. Nonetheless, every level of government, from multi-national bodies to local municipalities are increasingly involved with policy issues related to big data. Protecting the security and privacy of information will largely be left to the state and national level. But cities, particularly as they become “smart,” are all going to need cyber-security plans to protect essential infrastructure that depends on big data. 

Cities are also on the front lines for big data and social equity. In 2014, a White House report found that societal discrimination may “be the inadvertent outcome of the way big data technologies are structured and used.” A follow-up 2015 report outlined how big data could lead to both societal improvements and data discrimination in terms of access to credit, jobs, and higher education, and criminal justice. Cities will experience a similar phenomenon as they employ algorithms to improve services.

Cities will also be implicated when an entity has such a significant data advantage that competition—or, in the case of Facebook, political discourse—might be unfairly skewed. Whenever a media platform has become the equivalent to a town square, government has tried to maintain some form of fair access for appearances and advertising by candidates.

But fairness is not just important for political debate. Governments also act to protect fair markets. Here again, big data raises new issues. 

Cities, like all major enterprises in this era, look to big data to improve how they fulfill their mission. Sometimes they partner with private sector actors to share data and improve services on all sides. For example, various cities partner with Waze, and others with Uber, to improve transportation. Similarly, Chicago used big data in a partnership with Allstate to improve food inspection. Partnerships occur at the national level as well, such as the Google AI company’s controversial use of millions of British National Health Service patient records to develop a kidney monitoring app.

As cities develop ways to exploit the emerging Civic Internet of Things, such partnerships will become common. These partnerships hold great promise and should be encouraged. Nonetheless, governments have to be conscious that data is an asset for enterprises and, in addition to protecting the security of the data, cities have to ensure that access to certain data does not cause competitive problems.

Looking at this new set of issues, cities should resist the temptation to think that every problem has a government-imposed solution. In the case of the recent controversy with Facebook, much of the criticism of the company implicitly ignores the First Amendment right of Facebook to provide content without government oversight. In the case of social inequity being exacerbated by big data, it is difficult to see how government can write rules that result in better algorithms.

Nonetheless, a public debate on these issues should be welcome. Transparency (or sunlight, as Justice Brandies wrote) is the best disinfectant. Further, cities have to have the internal staff resources to understand both the promise and perils of big data. Finally, cities should lead in the public discussion of these issues as the pragmatic framework cities bring to the issues is likely to be more productive than the more ideological framework that inflicts debates in D.C.

      

 

 

As a growing number of natural disasters have hit vulnerable regions across the country in recent years, state and local leaders have explored a range of new investment strategies to better safeguard their infrastructure assets and ultimately provide greater protection for their economies. Many cities, for instance, are already leading in the development of resilient infrastructure projects and exploring non-traditional insurance options, such as resilience bonds.

While support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has traditionally played a crucial role in this respect—namely through its Public Assistance Program—post-disaster funding can take years to secure, and it can often be difficult for states and localities to access and distribute disaster aid effectively. At the same time, federal agencies face increasingly constrained budgets and are searching for ways to share financial responsibilities more with regions.

There is cause for optimism, however. A recent proposal by FEMA to create a new “Disaster Deductible Program” holds promise of mitigating long-term risks, reducing costs, and enhancing regional capacity to adapt to future disasters.

In short, the concept behind this new program is to require recipients—generally state, tribal, and territorial governments—to show that they have dedicated a predetermined amount of money to disaster recovery before FEMA would provide any financial assistance. FEMA’s consideration of new deductibles is part of a larger trend: federal disaster recovery resources are likely to have even more strings attached. Local governments, in turn, need to acknowledge the inevitable shift in federal funding and plan for it.

Given the enormous scale and complexity of coordinating such a response, though, states and localities must work together to develop more comprehensive funding strategies. One idea that we have proposed is to create new Resilience Flexible Spending Accounts (RFSAs) as part of the new deductible program. By linking deductibles to a new state account rather than paying into a general Treasury or FEMA account, RFSAs can help regions:

1. Retain control over funding and maintain flexibility for local uses
2. Create a more reliable source of rapid response funding
3. Anticipate compliance with any future federal disaster deductible requirements
4. Incentivize large-scale investments in risk reduction projects

Similar to many workplace flexible spending accounts that incentivize personal healthcare savings through pre-tax benefits, RFSAs can spur investments in risk reduction projects and systematically improve local resilience. For example, well-designed flood barriers, dune restoration projects, and seawalls can measurably reduce risk to hurricane and storm surge. FEMA could implement an equivalent to insurance companies’ safe-driver discounts—in the form of deductible adjustments—for all recipients that use funds for these types of risk-reduction activities.

The current model of post-disaster funding is broken. Recent efforts to improve disaster aid acknowledge that local governments must lead after disasters to ensure the speediest possible recovery options for residents and vulnerable communities. RFSAs are just one idea to put local leaders in the driver’s seat after disasters strike. Unless cities and states start the dialogue now on the future of disaster aid, it is unlikely that federal disaster assistance programs will be able to effectively serve the hardest hit communities long into the future.

      

 

 

From Beijing to New York, Bogota to New Delhi and Paris to Lagos, each day urban residents set out in pursuit of personal and economic objectives. This activity sets off an uncoordinated ballet of movement as people walk, bike, drive, bus, and metro to their respective destinations.

But can everyone get to where they want to go, in a reasonable amount of time and at a reasonable cost? Are destinations equally accessible to all?

These are the core questions of our Moving to Access (MTA) initiative.

While transportation has always been essential to how cities and regions function, global attention to how those systems operate has never been greater. The recently approved United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) recognize the need to “make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.” This includes the goal of providing access to safe, affordable, accessible, and sustainable transport systems for all by 2030.

Dealing with urban access and the role of transport, however, is complex. What may be appropriate for Sao Paolo may not be appropriate for Hanoi; what may be feasible in Portland, Ore., may not be possible in Addis; or what is acceptable in Copenhagen may not be desirable for Mumbai. Even within a city, access demands vary widely between demographic groups—whether measured by income, gender, race, or age—and based on destination. Consider the varying constraints and demands of the businessperson who needs to make it to work for a 9:00 a.m. call; the factory worker who must arrive at the plant for the midnight shift; the vendor who sells fresh fruits and vegetables to the local market at dawn; or the working parent tasked with getting all three kids to school before work. With so many variables, planning for an array of individuals’ behavior is daunting.

The traditional response of the transport community focused on “mobility.” In this case, that means moving people as fast as possible, no matter where they’re going. As more people turn to the automobile for personal travel, mobility has often meant reducing street congestion and increasing travel speeds, especially during peak travel periods.

This is a limited view. Transportation is about far more than how fast you move—it’s about accessing opportunity.

Whereas access to other infrastructure services such as electricity, telecommunications, or water is easily measured at the household level, urban transport has no equivalent metric. Indeed, living near a road or bus stop or owning a car or bicycle does not really measure urban access. Ultimately it is whether one’s housing can connect to critical destinations. It’s the interaction of land use and transport that determines accessibility.

Aiming to boost accessibility—not necessarily mobility—also raises new questions about how society pays for transportation. Do new investments help all city residents reach new destinations? Are pricing and subsidy policies for reducing congestion or addressing environmental effects consistent with achieving access for all? As governments across the globe consider new methods to finance infrastructure investment, there is a serious gap in framing transportation challenges around broader objectives.

The MTA initiative comes at a critical time. Moving past a traditional transportation model that prioritizes mobility to one that favors accessibility, MTA aims to provide the tools and techniques that put accessibility theory into practice.

To advance this goal, we will create a platform to discuss research and practical applications on urban accessibility. It will include original, applied research to explore integrating accessibility into urban transportation planning, investment and policy. We will report on cutting-edge technical requirements—ranging from software to performance measures—to improve government and private sector decisions related to the built environment. And we will host a network of professionals to exchange ideas and tell their local stories, all feeding into a new resource bank of practical solutions.

We are confident that enhancing urban accessibility can unlock sustainable and inclusive growth in cities across the world. We are excited to craft solutions to make it happen.

      

 

 

The need to invest in roads, rails, ports, power plants, and water facilities has emerged as a theme of Infrastructure Week 2016, particularly when it comes to the call for regional leadership and collaboration alongside federal efforts. Across all types of infrastructure, public and private leaders are looking to fill a growing investment gap across the country and accelerate repairs of aging assets that are crucial to long-term economic growth.

Focusing on these enormous physical needs, though, overlooks the 14.5 million workers, or one out of every 10 workers nationally, who operate, design, govern, and repair U.S. infrastructure. And much like the physical investment gap, nearly 3 million infrastructure jobs will become vacant over the next decade due to high turnover and an impending wave of retirements. This underscores the need to invest in infrastructure employment, too.

The bigger question, then, is how employers and workers alike develop the skills necessary to fill this looming infrastructure jobs gap. Our recent report on infrastructure skills – along with the accompanying Facebook Live video below – helps define the specific types of knowledge, tools, and training frequently required in these positions.

Above all, since most infrastructure occupations emphasize knowledge in a variety of content areas, they offer pathways to develop durable and transferable skills. Whether employed as water treatment plant operators, railroad conductors, or solar photovoltaic installers, workers in infrastructure occupations typically depend on an expansive set of knowledge in processes that extend far beyond building and construction. Even as market dynamics and technological potential for some industries like trucking change over time, many infrastructure workers are gaining familiarity in disciplines with far-reaching economic relevance.   

Workers in infrastructure occupations also use more than twice the number of tools and technologies (14) compared to the average number (6) used across all occupations. From personal computers and two-way radios to forklifts and power saws, infrastructure workers must become adept with an assortment of instruments and devices to do their jobs.

Remarkably, despite these knowledge requirements, 93 percent of workers in infrastructure occupations usually do not require a bachelor’s degree.  While some infrastructure occupations, such as nuclear engineers and landscape architects, need more advanced levels of education, the vast majority do not, often having a high school diploma or post-secondary certificate while still earning competitive wages. This means on-the-job training is particularly important, which employers, educators, and workforce development agencies must address collectively at a regional level, similar to efforts already underway in places like Los Angeles, Seattle, and Chicago.

To support greater economic opportunity, infrastructure’s sizable role in the labor market needs to get its due. While national attention to this issue helps – during Infrastructure Week and the presidential election, for example – it will ultimately be up to a host of different public, private, and civic leaders to craft development strategies in support of a skilled infrastructure workforce for decades to come.

      

 

 

It is rare that an FCC meeting evokes thoughts of “The Little Prince.” Still, reading accounts of last week’s contretemps over Lifeline—a program to promote telecommunications access for low-income households—reminded me of the prince’s observation that “what is essential is invisible to the eye.” The stories focused on the conflict, ignoring the consensus forged and more important, the essential progress made.

The meeting stopped and restarted several times as Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and the two Republicans negotiated over the program’s budget. Eventually Clyburn rejoined the two Democrats and voted for the chairman’s budget proposal. I don’t deny the drama of the cliffhanger negotiations, nor the WWE-worthy accusations of foul play that followed when those negotiations broke down.

The excitement, however, distracts one from the simple truth about the Lifeline budget. Its parameters will be decided by November’s election, not by the five current commissioners. Thursday’s vote was an opening bid but is subject to many adjustments down the line.

Far more important was the essential and long-lasting structural transition of Lifeline’s voice-centric framework to one reflecting the centrality of broadband. The commission also took steps to transfer the determination of eligibility from the carriers to a third party and remove barriers to more carriers participating. Nothing will do more to improve the value delivered to the intended beneficiaries than robust competition in that market segment.

Unlike on other telecom issues, a consensus has emerged in support of this generational change. Despite the spat between commissioners, it’s truly incredible to see the spectrum of supporting statements from, among many others, A&T and Google, USTelecom, and Free Press, Comcast and former Commissioner Michael Copps. All echoed Copps description of the decision as a “giant leap forward.”

Of course, consensus is not the same as unanimity. States have raised concerns that a national verifier of eligibility will limit the states’ ability to protect the public. I’ve seen many battles between the states and the federal government on telecom issues, from the Hundt Commission preempting state wireless pricing authority through litigation over the 1996 Telecom Act and continuing through today. I have sometimes agreed with the states, but on Lifeline, I think the FCC has the better argument. The key to reducing fraud is reducing incentives to engage in fraud, which the FCC has done by transferring responsibility for verification. Moreover, the best protection for consumers is competition—and the newly-designed lifeline should remove significant barriers to competition among carriers.

Lifeline progress should be particularly welcomed by cities. As a letter from over three dozen mayors supporting reform noted, “Getting more low-income households online will help modernize delivery of public services—facilitating more responsive and effective governance while lowering overheads for local governments. E-government delivery also saves the public the expense of visiting government offices in person—a particular concern for low-income households. Taking advantage of e-government frees public beneficiaries from losing wages if they are paid hourly, and it allows easier and more ubiquitous access to opportunities and resources.”

Some year hence we will forget the heated press conference that followed last week’s meeting (just as future generations, I hope, will forget that 2016 presidential debates featured discussions of men’s hand sizes). Instead, we will see what the mayors envision—modernized public services that take advantage of the digital platform to improve the lives of all, but particularly low-income Americans. If history is fair, we will then remember the essential giant leap the FCC took last week enabling that achievement.

      

 

 

As Flint’s water crisis continues to reverberate nationally, policymakers have turned their attention to the fundamental infrastructure challenges at hand. From Los Angeles to New York, many regions are not only contending with aging, overburdened water facilities—including areas with lead pipes similar to Flint—but are also confronting an enormous backlog of costs, severe financial constraints, and difficulty in coordinating action across thousands of individual community water systems.

In the near term, the biggest issue these regions face can often simply come down to identifying where the problems exist. More than a century old in some cases, pipes with the most pressing maintenance needs can be difficult to identify, as the risk for widespread leaks and other public health concerns mount over time. Meanwhile, the lack of timely updated information can extend well beyond lead service lines in places like Flint, making it difficult for utilities and other stakeholders to address wastewater upgrades, groundwater levels, and related water needs simultaneously.

In turn, public, private, and civic leaders frequently need to have better regional measures at their disposal to drive more efficient and equitable infrastructure improvements.

Of course, developing and applying any new metrics is easier said than done, especially given the difficulty in estimating local water needs with varying levels of regulatory oversight. Still, there are a number of steps that regions can take now to more precisely define their infrastructure gaps:

• Depending on the specific utility, for instance, increasing transparency on data already collected can make a big difference. In California, there has been a push to reveal more granular public data on water use, which can help aid in conservation efforts.
• Likewise, by producing more detailed metrics and visualizations of the infrastructure itself, regions can pinpoint needs in specific neighborhoods or even at individual addresses. For example, the Boston and Water Sewer Commission has created a lead service map, revealing what properties in the city have private lead service pipes.            
• Encouraging more frequent and consistent testing also holds promise, particularly when it comes to detecting pollutants and other areas of concern. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Lead and Copper Rule is perhaps the most notable example in this respect, where requiring more stringent testing—from the EPA to states to localities—can better safeguard all water users.
• At the same time, emphasizing a range of drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater needs is crucial, even when focusing on concerns over lead and similar pollutants. Regions are adapting to a variety of population pressures, climate fluctuations, and other challenges, which is driving the creation of new resilience strategies and measures in markets from Norfolk to Chicago.  
• Finally, empowering consumers and stakeholders to voice their concerns can help spread new information. Flint’s crisis has elevated the importance of water as a national priority, largely driven by the efforts of researchers and local residents.

While the magnitude and urgency of the nation’s water challenges have steered greater interest in a federally led solution, states and localities remain at the forefront; they cover more than three-quarters of all public spending on water infrastructure and will likely need to play a bigger role in years to come through more coordinated leadership, more targeted investments, and increased technological innovation. Having clearer, more consistent metrics can accelerate these efforts and build momentum for future improvements.   

     

 

 

The FCC is poised to reform a Reagan-era program designed to keep low-income Americans connected to core communications services.  In Reagan’s time, this meant voice; now it means broadband.

This reform has particular importance for cities. As a bipartisan group of 44 mayors observed in a letter supporting reform, “Getting more low-income households online will help modernize delivery of public services—facilitating more responsive and effective governance while lowering overheads for local governments. E-government delivery also saves the public the expense of visiting government offices in person …. Taking advantage of e-government frees public beneficiaries from losing wages if they are paid hourly, and it allows easier and more ubiquitous access to opportunities and resources.”

The mayors correctly anticipate how a local government can both improve itself and the lives of its residents when all are online. Still, this is also an appropriate moment to look back to consider critical lessons on the nature of successful reforms.

It’s been clear, at least since the 2010 National Broadband Plan that the FCC should reform Lifeline, as the program is called, to include broadband. Unfortunately, the subsequent 2012 FCC effort failed to do so. Rather, the 2012 effort focused largely on steps to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. While those steps had merit, they did not go to the root of the problem: relying on carriers to certify the eligibility of the program recipients, which creates incentives for fraud and abuse. Moreover the reforms neither enabled the transition to broadband nor created a competitive dynamic to improve value for Lifeline customers. The reforms were limited, in part in an effort to obtain Republican support, and in part because the then FCC chairman focused his personal efforts on a new non-profit to encourage broadband adoption. There is nothing wrong with a non-profit effort. Its impact, however, pales in comparison to the impact of real Lifeline reform.

Fortunately, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn understood the initial efforts were not enough. She articulated principles for a real reform package at an American Enterprise Institute event in November 2014, principles current Chairman Tom Wheeler and the staff adopted in moving the process forward.  At their core, the reforms do three things: allow the subsidy to purchase broadband, transfer the obligation to certify to an independent third party, and lower barriers to carriers offering programs for Lifeline-eligible customers. All are necessary, but the last is often overlooked.

Currently, the major carriers find the administrative costs too burdensome, yet the best way to improve the program’s effectiveness is for carriers to compete for that market segment. Fortunately, national providers are starting to compete for that market. Reducing the carriers’ costs to participate in Lifeline should add fuel to the competition that can ensure recipients will receive a lot more bang for the program’s bucks.

These reforms are far reaching, combining the desire for greater efficiency and improved value for recipients. I can’t predict whether the Republicans at the commission will endorse them but it is notable that the reforms have garnered support from a broad spectrum of stakeholders, as indicated by a letter signed by six major carriers and a dozen diverse community groups. Bipartisanship is good but, as the 2012 effort suggests, such support should be the consequence of solid policy analytics, not the principal objective.

It is unfortunate the FCC did not adopt the 2016 reforms in 2012.  The benefits the mayors described could be today’s reality instead of a remaining aspiration. Nonetheless, the reforms demonstrate that the federal government still has within it to course correct and in so doing, lay a foundation for a better future for all.

     

 

 

The emergence of ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft seems to pose a direct challenge to the nation’s overburdened and underfunded transit agencies, potentially siphoning off patrons most able to pay full fare. Yet, amid competition, there exists a real opportunity for collaboration in providing mobility to the agencies’ neediest customers.

American public transit needs the help. While systems from Charlotte to Houston to Seattle are building new capacity and connectivity, many also face tight budgets and enormous debt burdens, leading to service cuts and increased fares. In Memphis, the transit authority is on the verge of fiscal collapse. Other agencies in Los Angeles and Washington are experiencing lower demand, and many new riders still live too far from high-frequency service or struggle to access jobs and other services via transit.

Amid these difficulties, however, new service providers—transportation network companies (TNCs)—are shifting how people move around our cities and offering mobility solutions through a series of ride-hailing innovations.

One avenue for collaboration between these start-up firms and traditional transit agencies may be around so-called demand response services. Primarily geared toward disadvantaged individuals, these taxi-like services provide a lifeline to needy residents in urban and rural areas. But they also carry a heavy cost, and transit agencies from Boston to Washington are starting to look toward TNCs as a potential partner. The long-term implications of arrangements like these involve a number of structural issues that transportation leaders need to confront.

Mandated under federal law, demand response (DR) services provide assistance for persons with limited mobility, allowing them to reach services like healthcare providers and grocery stores. Also called paratransit and dial-a-ride in many areas, DR services do not operate over a fixed schedule like a standard public bus; rather, vehicles are dispatched on request and operate door-to-door. In many ways, DR services represent a progenitor of mobile app-based TNCs.

Such service is costly, though. From outdated technology to the difficulty in coordinating options among multiple transportation providers, DR services are the most expensive mode to operate on a per trip basis, exceeding $23 in 2013. Federal regulations limit the fares transit agencies can collect for DR services to double a regular bus ride, leaving transit agencies with enormous cost gaps and the highest subsidies per passenger of any transportation mode (what experts call the farebox recovery ratio).

Even more concerning is how DR costs have ballooned over time as demand continues to grow. In 2013, DR services cost $5.2 billion, or 12.2 percent of the total for all transit services. By comparison, it only represented 3.2 percent of all costs in 1988 and has easily seen the largest rise in expenses of any transit mode. These escalating costs come despite the fact that DR services carry only about 2 percent of all transit trips; commuter rail generates relatively high operating costs as well, but carries 4.5 percent of all riders by comparison.

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit), and the Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) are among multiple agencies that have seen DR costs almost quadruple from 2000 to 2014, when adjusted for inflation. While not shown in the figure, New York City Transit (NYCT) faces the highest operating costs in this category, rising to nearly $456 million in 2014, versus under $20 million less than two decades ago.

Together, the high costs and growing demand for DR services puts a strain on transit agency budgets—already spread thin for other needed improvements—and represents a long-term fiscal challenge.

The tantalizing prospect, then, is to consider ride-hailing services as a new outlet for cost savings and improved access.

These transportation network companies launched with a fairly narrow focus on taxi-like rides but have started to offer a greater range of services that complement or outright compete against traditional transit. For example, Lyft has launched a “Friends with Transit” initiative to forge stronger, more convenient links for a growing number of riders in Boston, Chicago, and elsewhere. Both Uber and Lyft synchronize with transit agency mobile apps in Dallas and Atlanta. Meanwhile, there is a surge in TNCs offering a mix of ride-hailing and transit services, often called microtransit, including a new service agreement between Kansas City and one such company, Bridj.

Transit agencies may want to explore contracting-out DR services to TNCs. Beyond minimizing costs through their software platforms and efficiently deploying drivers to customers, TNCs can probably update technologies faster than traditional public transit agencies. Riders could also benefit, free from worrying about the need to schedule days in advance. Many analysts agree that opportunities exist to improve current DR and paratransit services.

The hypothetical math works, too. If the average DR trip provided by a TNC costs $13 on average, this would generate marginal savings of $10 per ride for transit agencies. If the cost was closer to $18 per ride, that’s still a net reduction of $5 per ride. Multiplying those savings against the 223 million trips per year, transit agencies would free up $1.1 to $2.2 billion in their operational budgets. These kinds of savings would have an enormous impact on overall transit performance, whether increasing vehicle frequency, adding new routes, or simply reducing the aggregate subsidy to run individual agencies.

Still, several thorny issues remain unresolved and may complicate a transition to TNC-provided services. Organized labor may oppose the transition from unionized staff to independent contractors, and disability advocates contend that companies like Uber are already in violation of federal laws mandating equal access. Smartphone penetration is weak among lower-income and elderly individuals, which may portend problems with DR customers accessing TNC services. Coordination is already an issue between multiple transit agencies offering DR service in one place, meaning there could be governance challenges if each agency must separately contract with a single TNC.

Finally—and perhaps most importantly—no one knows if TNCs can even provide DR services for lower marginal costs. Recent estimates of Uber and Lyft fares tend to average around $13, albeit with wide differences in cost depending on the particular service used. But is that average ride comparable to a typical DR trip? Are there enough vehicles available to meet the physical needs of DR customers? Recognizing that TNCs will need to pay drivers a competitive rate while still generating a profit, transit agencies will need to weigh subsidy costs carefully.

The ability of TNCs to deliver point-to-point mobility for relatively low costs has the potential to align quite well with public transit agencies that are struggling to address the mounting costs of DR services and meet the increasing demand for conventional fixed route services. In the short term, exploring these arrangements can benefit providers and customers in many ways.

Longer term, solving the DR riddle could lead to more effective, robust partnerships between transit agencies and TNCs. Whether it’s new coordination around first-and-last mile service or sharing data on ridership patterns, a future where transit agencies and TNCs seamlessly work together to maximize social benefit is the real innovation we should be seeking.

     

 

 

Although the U.S. economy experienced 71 consecutive months of job growth, many people and households are not better off. This is particularly true if you are poor and physically isolated from jobs and good schools. The barriers facing many Americans are multiple, and creating effective pathways to opportunity requires action on a wide range of issues, from early childhood education, to nutrition, to personal finance. But there are few things more central to a person’s well-being than a home of their own and the transportation networks that provide both physical and economic mobility.

A recent Brookings event aimed to address these barriers to opportunity by highlighting the need for more comprehensive plans, innovative investments, and coordinated regional strategies centered on housing and transportation.

When it comes to housing, HUD Secretary Julián Castro discussed his department’s final version of its “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH) rule, which is intended to provide communities—and HUD grantees—with greater guidance and technical support under the Fair Housing Act. Through more open data, extensive collaboration, and locally tailored policies, regions have the potential to incorporate fair housing more seamlessly into their existing community development plans. Still, overcoming long-standing impediments to fair housing, such as restrictive zoning, and achieving greater transparency in compliance efforts remains to be seen, with success largely hinging on actions by individual localities.

Amy Liu, Vice President and Director, Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program; Honorable Julián Castro, Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Honorable Anthony Foxx, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation

Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, likewise, has promoted clearer infrastructure connections to economic opportunity with the department’s Ladders of Opportunity initiative, although regions ultimately remain the key players in putting people first in transportation plans and spearheading a range of multimodal projects in support of more widespread accessibility. Under the Ladders initiative, for example, pilot projects in seven U.S. cities—from Atlanta to Phoenix—are receiving federal support in the form of technical and financial assistance, but the long-term success of these projects will crucially depend on how well they connect to local land use strategies and other planning efforts.

In turn, when tying together broader housing and transportation concerns, regions represent the primary laboratories for experimentation and innovation, backed by support from a number of different public, private, and civic partners. Whether considering poverty in outlying suburbs or urban cores, metro areas like Kansas City are actively assessing their fair housing challenges and also taking direct aim on how transportation services need to change to better connect low income households. Chicago is linking up local housing authorities with that region’s metropolitan planning organization to promote more housing choice on a regional level. Baltimore is similarly working with their region’s principal transportation planning agency to add on the responsibility of housing to its work.

As a result of federal action, opportunities for creative metropolitan actors to “put it all together” in service of multi-dimensional and integrated solutions are starting to proliferate. But this is tough stuff. Despite some clear successes in these regions, we still have a long way to go to make sure housing and transportation policy actively promotes and support economic mobility. The task is for metro leaders to learn from one another and craft their own bottom-up solutions that match their unique challenges.

     

 

 

Last week, the New York Times ran an article on how the digital divide particularly affects schoolchildren, creating what they termed a “homework gap.”  The article illustrates vividly what has been clear, at least since the 2010 National Broadband Plan advocated universal adoption—that today, a person’s full participation in the economy and civic life requires connectivity.

That plan made a number of recommendations, including reforming Lifeline, a Reagan-era program designed to assure that low-income Americans could access voice services. The Federal Communications Commission adopted limited reforms in 2012, but neglected the more critical steps of including broadband or reforming the program’s structure to encourage more providers to participate. Fortunately, Commissioner Clyburn kicked off a more robust discussion of the issue, and Chairman Wheeler is committed to having the commission adopt the more important reforms next month.

Changes in government policy are a necessary but not sufficient answer to the problem. Another outcome of the plan’s discussions included various private efforts, such as Cox Cable’s program and Comcast’s Internet Essentials, now the largest program connecting low-income Americans to broadband. AT&T and other telcos offer similar programs.

Google also entered the space, including in its first fiber roll-out an inexpensive option—a one time connection fee of $300, payable over time but no monthly service charge—for a 5Mbps service, priced well below the comparable DSL service. Google also supports programs like Digital Inclusion Fellows, to help aid local training sessions.

Google, however, keeps adjusting its approach. Monday, it announced that instead of building its own fiber network, it would lease a network from a local electric utility, a transaction that I think has significant implications for how Google scales and one that creates new opportunities and leverage for cities. Google followed that with an announcement Wednesday of a similar lease model in San Francisco that will include connecting some public housing projects for free as part of the HUD Connect Home initiative.

What’s great about these private efforts, which will enjoy increased momentum when the FCC reforms Lifeline, is they demonstrate how market forces are taking hold and spurring behavior common to more competitive markets: experimentation and adjustments to find more effective ways to bring customers value. Market forces alone will not solve the adoption issue, but market forces, particularly if supported by smarter government, can accelerate the closing of the digital divide.

This is particularly welcome news for cities, whose mayors are increasingly concerned about the digital divide. Like the Huntsville deal, Google’s San Francisco model opens up new opportunities for cities that want to address those concerns. Many cities have significant fiber assets that they use for their own enterprise purposes. In addition, many private companies have dark fiber assets in urban areas that could be lit up for such efforts. Today’s news, in combination with the FCC’s actions next month, will hopefully spark other creative efforts by cities, non-profits, providers, and others to make sure all are connected to broadband, this era’s commons of collaboration.

     

 

 

Event Information

Two important factors connecting communities to employment, education, and vital services are affordable housing and transportation. While improving proximity and access to jobs alone certainly won’t solve our social mobility challenges, it can ameliorate problems like segregation, concentrated poverty, and low-density sprawl that pose real barriers to economic progress for low-income families.

Both the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Transportation are tackling barriers to opportunity head on. HUD recently released an “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH) rule, representing a renewed effort to implement the Fair Housing Act’s mandate to address the persistence of racially concentrated poverty in the United States. For its part, the U.S. Department of Transportation has launched the Ladders of Opportunity Transportation Empowerment Pilot in seven U.S. cities, which provides technical assistance to attract public and private resources to game-changing community transportation projects.

On Tuesday, February 23, the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings hosted an event to discuss efforts to expand access to opportunity. Brookings Vice President and Director of the Metropolitan Policy Program Amy Liu moderated a conversation between U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro and U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. The conversation was followed by a response panel of experts from metropolitan areas across the country who discussed local level impacts.

Photos

Art Collins, Managing Partner, theGroup and Trustee, The Brookings Institution

Amy Liu, Vice President and Director, Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program; Honorable Julián Castro, Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Honorable Anthony Foxx, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation

Left to Right: Robert Puentes, Senior Fellow and Director of Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative, Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program; Scot T. Spencer (Baltimore), Associate Director of Community Change Influence, Annie E. Casey Foundation and Co-chair, Opportunity Collaborative; Robin Snyderman (Chicago), Principal, BRicK Partners, LLC and Non-resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program; Frank Lenk (Kansas City), Director of Research Services, Mid-America Regional Council (MARC)

Video

• Moderated Conversation
• Panel Discussion
• Economic expansion, economic exclusion
• Zip code should not determine destiny
• Communities can solve problems of opportunity

Audio

• Pathways to opportunity: Housing, transportation, and social mobility

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20160223_pathway_opportunity_transcript

     

 

 

While the President Obama’s 2017 budget was a political non-starter even before its release, analysts nonetheless attempted to divine the future of federal policy from its contents.

That was certainly the case for the transportation portion. A new $10-per-barrel oil tax garnered significant media attention, especially since it would effectively more than double the federal gas tax. Other stories noted the significant commitment to electric vehicle innovation, heightened transit investment, and commitment to clean transportation. All massive policy changes, to be sure.

What received far less attention, however, was a new program that—beyond just the money—promised to actually change how the federal government does business. The 21st Century Regions Grant Program is the most important proposal you may not have heard about, and it finally represents a commitment to metropolitan areas consistent with their economic importance.

For perspective on the scale of this program’s innovation, compare it to how the current surface transportation program operates. The vast majority of total federal spending gets directed to states through formula programs: 73 percent of total roadway and transit spending in 2015.* States also maintain near sole authority on where to invest formula funds within their borders, and the selected projects don’t require economic, social, or environmental justification. For the relatively small amount of funding delivered via competitive grants—notably, transit capital and TIGER—only single projects receive awards. Finally, outside relatively small metropolitan planning grants, spending is mode specific.

The 21^st Century Regions Grant Program is a major departure from this setup. First, it sends grants directly to metropolitan governments, giving them control over spending decisions. Second, it’s a competitive program that will base awards on demonstrated metropolitan need and offer simultaneous support for related projects. Third, the program explicitly looks to fund integrated transportation solutions and break down modal silos.

The proposed funding would immediately make it a major component of the federal portfolio. Funding ramps up from $1 billion in 2017 to $6.5 billion in 2018, and then annually averages $8.8 billion between 2019 and 2023. That average is larger than all but two highway formula programs and only $3 billion less than the entire Federal Transit Administration budget in 2016. This isn’t a token program—it could have real effect on the ground.

Combined, these features will incentivize all metropolitan areas to plan collaboratively, use rigorous performance benchmarking, and think about how transportation interrelates to broader outcomes. It should have far-ranging impacts on how metro areas prioritize specific projects, ideally leading to more multi-project efforts like Chicago’s CREATE program.

Secretary Foxx and his team deserve credit for proposing this kind of policy approach. And they couldn’t be more explicit about the pressing need. Tucked deep within a Budget Estimates document, the department states: “Metropolitan regions receive insufficient funding, despite having the majority of the population, producing the majority of national GDP, and being best positioned to make investment decisions to optimize existing assets and expand multimodal travel choices.”

The 21^st Century Regions Grant Program may not receive consideration on Capitol Hill this year, but the policy signal is clear. It’s time to recognize we live in a metropolitan nation.

*This includes all apportioned programs from FY 2015 ($37.8 billion), divided by total Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration enacted spending ($51.9 billion) in the same year.

     

 

 

Today’s announcement that the municipally owned electric utility in Huntsville, Ala. will lease its fiber lines to Google could transform how municipalities provide broadband access.

To understand the implications, some background is necessary. Huntsville, like many communities, wants a next-generation network. As its utility was planning a fiber network for its own purposes, it decided to allow third parties to lease spare fiber, adopting a dark fiber model. Communities like Champagne/Urbana, Ill., Westminster, Md., and Holly Springs, N.C. have already pioneered similar transactions.

What makes the Huntsville news potentially transformative is that the service provider is Google Fiber.

Google Fiber has already roiled the market. Before it entered the field, the wireline market structure had comfortably settled into a harvest strategy. Both cable and telco Internet service providers focused on harvesting broadband revenues—one with a premium product, the other with a value product—from networks designed to allocate scarce bandwidth, rather than investing to provide next-generation broadband. Google Fiber provided a taste of a network designed to deploy affordable, abundant bandwidth. This caused incumbents to change their tune from saying no one wants gigabit speed to bragging they will provide it. Google Fiber also changed the way cities viewed their policies affecting the cost of network deployments. To the cities credit, they improved their policies for both Google and incumbents.

Google Fiber, however, has rolled out slowly. It takes a long time to build a fiber network from scratch, and if, as Google as done, one manages every project, it can take decades to scale. Six years after Google’s initial announcement, the number of homes passed is still small.

The Huntsville model changes Google’s path to scale as it potentially decentralizes construction efforts to multiple cities.  Further, it represents the first effort by a major company to decouple ownership of the fiber network from providing Internet services, potentially forcing both incumbents and other tech companies to rethink their strategies.

The model also provides cities a new tool to accelerate the delivery of abundant bandwidth to its residents. One can see a number of forces—cities, construction companies, finance companies—joining forces to construct, and in some places complete, dark fiber networks far faster than Google Fiber has been doing with its current model. The new model also allows a city to address a number of city specific policy objectives, such as enterprise zones and closing the digital divide, along the way. This path resembles how America built out its electric grid; through local, rather than national efforts.

Further, the model expands the number of communities that will benefit from the “game of gigs,” in which a Google announcement generates a network upgrade announcement from the incumbent telco and cable company. Previously, that game appeared limited to those communities that met the Google build-out algorithm. Now, many more communities, particularly smaller communities that do not have scale, will be in play. Further, the option gives cities leverage they previously lacked in negotiating with incumbents.

Some may argue Huntsville is unwisely investing in a “municipal broadband” project in which public money is unfairly competing with private. That characterization misses the point. I philosophically have no problem with a city offering a broadband service. As a practical matter, however, it is a rare city that should be in that business. To be successful usually requires taking on financial and marketing risk, as well as the ability to attract talent and expand, all undertakings outside the core competencies of cities.

This model, however, does not require the city to take on those risks and tasks. Rather, it requires the city to do something it does well: civil engineering. Building a dark fiber network is similar to building a water or sewer system. It is in adding electronics and operating, marketing, and servicing a fiber network, however, where most cities’ skills will be sorely tested.

Further, the Huntsville deal provides that any provider will be able to lease the fiber, under the utility’s standard terms and rates that apply to different provider types, thereby meeting the fairness test and lowering barriers to competition.

In short, if Google, or others, offer this opportunity broadly, it provides a win for cities that want new broadband options but without taking on problematic risks, a win in accelerating America achieving affordable, abundant bandwidth, and a win for America’s efforts to lead in the broadband delivered global information economy.

     

 

 

President Obama recently unveiled an ambitious new plan to pump $32 billion more annually into sustainable 21st century transportation infrastructure. With a dual focus on jumpstarting economic investment and reducing carbon pollution, the plan aims to drive innovations in public transit, intercity rail, and electric vehicle technology, and other clean fuel alternatives. In short, the kind of sustainable investments that are gaining momentum at the local, regional, and international level.

Not surprisingly, immediate reactions to the plan have been dismissive. Funded through a new $10-per-barrel oil tax phased in over five years, many members of Congress are already pronouncing the measure dead-on-arrival, while oil companies are apoplectic about its implementation.

But here’s why it’s important:

This past December, Congress passed a long-term surface transportation bill—the FAST Act—for the first time in years, but it does little to move beyond the country’s interstate highway era, marks slow progress on a variety of alternative infrastructure investments, and largely overlooks the nation’s climate concerns. However, the president’s new proposal puts transportation squarely at the forefront of the country’s key environmental goals, as it should be given its enormous contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition, the FAST Act fails to raise additional revenues to pay for transportation, relying instead on a series of budgetary gimmicks and the same federal gasoline tax that has remained unchanged and undercut by inflation for the past two decades. While the president’s idea to tax oil is a contentious move given its likely impact on consumers at the pump—where we could pay as much as 25 cents more per gallon—prices today are as low as they’ve been in a long time. Plus, many of the plan’s investments aim to encourage transportation alternatives, which is kind of the point since cheaper gas encourages more driving.

Beyond addressing the FAST Act’s shortcomings, Obama’s new plan also seeks to create a more robust market for cleaner vehicles. Alongside obvious air quality and carbon-reduction benefits, the plan embraces the country’s advanced research capacity and entrepreneurial dynamism to deploy more electric vehicles. Given the insufficient number of charging stations nationally (and mostly concentrated in California), many regions need to launch more widespread investments.

Finally, the proposal recognizes that top-down federal mandates are not the best, or only,  way to tackle carbon reduction in the transportation sector. Increasingly, cities, states, and metropolitan areas have to be empowered and incentivized to act, and that progress has to be measured. Through a new “Climate Smart Fund” and other competitive grant programs, regions can accelerate more integrated and resilient investments, while continuing to devise their own visions for creating a cleaner future across transportation, housing, land use, economic development and energy policies.

Despite the plan’s solid attempt to invest in a cleaner, more efficient transportation network, a lack of foresight in Congress means a steep uphill battle, which is a shame. It’s time the nation adopts a more forward-looking approach to its infrastructure challenges rather continuing to accept the status-quo.

     

 

 

Flint’s water infrastructure has reached a crisis point, as residents cope with high levels of lead pollution and questions mount over contamination and negligent oversight. Aiming to cut costs in a state of financial emergency almost two years ago, the city began drawing water from the local Flint River rather than continuing to depend on traditional sources linked to Detroit, almost immediately leading to a variety of health and environmental concerns. Although Flint switched back to Detroit water this past fall, the city’s situation remains dire.

A combination of factors, of course, have contributed to Flint’s crisis—including lapses in state monitoring—but the aging and deteriorating condition of the city’s water infrastructure plays an enormous role.

Similar to many older industrial cities in the Midwest, Flint has struggled to pay for needed maintenance on pipes and other facilities, which not only buckle under time and pressure in the form of widespread leaks, but also result in higher costs and declining water quality. Typically out of sight and out of mind, many pipes are more than a century old and are expected to need $1 trillion in repairs nationally over the next 25 years alone. With more than 51,000 community water systems scattered across the country and the federal government responsible for under one-quarter of all public spending on water infrastructure, states and localities must coordinate and cover most of these costs.      

As a result, Flint is now facing a total water bill of up to $1.5 billion and needs a host of different public, private, and civic leaders to act to accelerate infrastructure improvements. Fortunately, several states and cities are pioneering innovative investments nationwide and providing models for future action.

Pennsylvania has driven funding in an assortment of drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater enhancements through its PENNVEST effort, providing nearly $8 billion in grants and low-interest loans to eligible projects since its inception in 1988. Likewise, with an emphasis on long-lasting environmental and economic benefits, Massachusetts has looked to target investments in aging facilities, provide clearer technical assistance, and encourage greater regulatory efficiencies. Other initiatives recently announced in New York have also helped tilt additional state support behind cleaner, more sustainable water improvements.

Many cities have pursued innovative planning and investment strategies as well. For example, Columbus created an integrated “blueprint” plan to specifically address its sewer and stormwater needs, looking to invest more extensively in green infrastructure. Chicago has touted an ambitious plan to pump more than $1.4 billion into water upgrades over the next decade, aiming to draw support from various public and private sources. Active efforts are also underway in Baltimore, which is replacing and relining aging pipes and carrying out other treatment plant upgrades to curb future service disruptions.

As Flint emerges from its current water crisis, it offers a cautionary tale to several other aging cities nationally. While extreme and unique in some ways, Flint’s predicament reveals broader infrastructure concerns that demand attention.