This essay is adapted from the foreword to the forthcoming Lincoln Institute book Infrastructure Economics and Policy: International Perspectives.  

The Lincoln Institute is preparing to launch a book about infrastructure, which you’ll find excerpted in the October print issue of Land Lines. It is one of the very few books about infrastructure published in the last decade. It could not come at a better time. 

Today, we are on the cusp of historic investments in global infrastructure. The World Bank estimates that we will need more than US$90 trillion in new infrastructure by 2030 to prepare cities for 2 billion new inhabitants, primarily in sprawling metropolises in low-income countries. This total investment exceeds the current annual gross domestic product of all the countries on the planet by around 20 percent. In order to formulate new sustainability strategies and policies for cities in regions where populations are growing rapidly—and in regions where city structures continue to evolve to adjust to innovations in technology and commerce—we need to understand the relationship between urbanization and infrastructure. 

The world also faces new challenges associated with the climate crisis, the sharing economy, and the fallout from COVID-19. If we want to protect ourselves from the impacts of the climate crisis, the World Bank suggests we add another US$1 trillion per year to the global investment noted above. If we are to live in a “new normal” shaped by global pandemics, infrastructure design and usage must be modified. 

For most people in developed countries, infrastructure is largely invisible, noticed only due to its absence or failure. We are chagrined when the power goes out or the Internet goes down. More distressingly, infrastructure failures can be catastrophic, such as when the Ponte Morandi collapsed into the Polcevera River in Genoa, Italy, in 2018; or when leaking, centuries-old gas pipes destroyed two apartment buildings in East Harlem, New York, in 2014; or when the levees failed and floodwater inundated New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. 

These awful events made headlines because infrastructure is supposed to be safe and reliable—and for a large portion of the world’s population, it usually is. But most people in developing countries live with inadequate roads, unreliable power supplies, and a lack of safe drinking water and basic sanitation. They have a diminished quality of life and reduced life expectancies as a result, and the growth of their local and national economies is constrained.  

When it works, infrastructure represents humanity at its best. Designing, developing, and financing infrastructure requires formidable technical expertise. But to get the job done, we also need to exercise our best social and political skills and work together to provide durable public goods that solve seemingly intractable social, economic, and environmental challenges. Colossal dams spanning treacherous canyons are a great example: they demand exceptional engineering acumen and provide decades of flood prevention, crop irrigation, drinking water, and electricity. Planning and financing infrastructure requires us to dispose of short-term thinking and make investments with benefits that will span generations. 

Infrastructure also represents humanity at its worst. We are at our worst when we allow opaque decisions about infrastructure to disadvantage or harm those without the economic or political power to influence those decisions—when new thoroughfares are forced through thriving communities of color to reduce drive times for suburban commuters, for example, or when public officials and beltway bandits strike sweetheart deals behind closed doors. Process is as important as, and sometimes more important than, outcomes. Infrastructure planning must include all stakeholders and account for their needs, aspirations, and rights.  

The stakes are high with infrastructure. We commit dizzying sums of money for decades to build and manage projects and systems of unimaginable scale and ambition. The very complexity of all aspects of infrastructure demands paramount integrity: conforming assiduously to engineering specifications, adhering to the rule of law, exercising fiscal discipline, and maintaining absolute transparency and accountability. Decisions to build infrastructure using public funds must be grounded in rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Although such methodologies are well developed in theory, in practice they can be abused with political pressure, intentional bias, or selective myopia. 

Moreover, public decision processes cannot always be trusted to produce optimal resource allocations. If we can understand the complexity of infrastructure within real-world constraints, we will make better spending decisions. Despite the obvious need for infrastructure, developing countries struggle to pay for long-term investments. While these constraints are real, there are many ways to finance infrastructure, even in the most impoverished places. These methods include land value capture mechanisms, which have been used for millennia and which involve recovering the increased value of land associated with infrastructure improvements. For example, betterment levies were used by the Roman Empire to build roads, bridges, tunnels, and viaducts connecting a vast area from Portugal to Constantinople. Land readjustment, in which parcels of land are pooled and improved with new infrastructure that is paid for through the sale of a small share of the land, has been used hundreds of times on multiple continents to build capital cities like Washington, DC, or rebuild towns and cities in countries ravaged by war. 

How effectively infrastructure meets economic and social goals depends critically on the way it is managed and regulated. Both the public and private sectors are active in infrastructure development and service provision. The infrastructure industry has gone through a cycle of domination by the private sector followed by public takeover and public provision, then to privatization, and to the increasingly popular public-private partnerships. Who gets served by infrastructure, and how they are served, is determined by regulatory structures that protect the public interest and require absolute transparency and accountability of vendors and public officials. 

We can learn a lot from international experiences related to the management and regulation of infrastructure. Some countries and regions develop and implement infrastructure plans and strategies to achieve specific social and economic objectives. The European Union used infrastructure grants and loans to help integrate new members both politically and economically through two rounds of expansion. Chinese policy makers advanced high-speed rail development strategies that supported the formation of several major city clusters (or megalopolises) to drive the growth of the national economy. In contrast, Japan’s rail policy relied mainly on the private sector to provide vital social services. The lessons from such experiences are important for countries that aspire to not only formulate effective infrastructure plans but also use infrastructure planning to achieve other important goals. 

It is hard to exaggerate the importance of infrastructure for sustaining human habitation on this planet. Without it, to quote Thomas Hobbes, “there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force . . . And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” 

At the Lincoln Institute, we have spent more than seven decades addressing social, economic, and environmental challenges using innovative land policies. Among those we have studied and recommended to address global challenges, none is more important than infrastructure. Without the lifeline goods and services delivered by effective and efficient infrastructure, human life would be nastier, more brutish, and shorter. If we can learn from the authors of this book, life will be better and longer for a multitude of people around the world. 

George W. McCarthy is president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 

Image: Interstates 10 and 101 in Los Angeles. Credit: Art Wager via Getty Images. 

Mark Anderson, an ecologist who has conducted groundbreaking work to map climate-resilient lands and waters across the United States, has been named the new Kingsbury Browne Fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the recipient of the Kingsbury Browne Conservation Leadership Award from the Land Trust Alliance.  

In his role as director of The Nature Conservancy’s Center for Resilient Conservation Science, Anderson oversees a team of scientists that has created detailed maps of areas whose topographies, elevations, and geologies are particularly suited for withstanding the impacts of climate change. These maps are used by government agencies, land trusts, and other organizations to prioritize conservation work. Anderson has also produced a deep body of scholarship in the field, including co-authorship of the National Vegetation Classification, an online inventory of plants and plant communities across the United States. 

“Mark is a global leader in applying the science of Geographic Information Systems to the art of land conservation,” said Jim Levitt, director of the International Land Conservation Network at the Lincoln Institute. “His insight has been invaluable in lighting the path forward.” 

“For years, Mark has been at the forefront of climate science and how to combine it effectively with ecology,” said Andrew Bowman, president and CEO of the Land Trust Alliance. “For his visionary climate work and his longstanding commitment to the land trust community, we are honored to name Mark this year’s Kingsbury Browne Conservation Leadership Award winner.” 

The fellowship and award, given since 2006, are named for Kingsbury Browne, a Boston tax lawyer and conservationist who served as a Lincoln Fellow in 1980 and helped form the Land Trust Alliance in 1982.  

Recent recipients of the fellowship include Fernando Lloveras San Miguel, executive director of the Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico; Jane Difley, who led the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests for 23 years; Michael Whitfield, executive director of the Heart of the Rockies Initiative; and Will Rogers, head of the Trust for Public Land. 

Photograph by DJ Glisson, II / Firefly Imageworks.

This content was developed through a partnership between the Lincoln Institute and the American Planning Association as part of the APA Foresight practice. It was originally published in APA’s Planning magazine. 

“The world turns and we get dizzy.” That’s how Bono would put it.

He’s right: the world’s accelerations, constant technological disruptions, social inequalities, and changing climate are only a few of the dizzying, mind-boggling challenges today’s planners face. Many of them have been with us for a while. But then came COVID-19, which has catalyzed technological disruptions, amplified our awareness of the effects and pervasiveness of social injustice, and sparked countless other challenges.

Some of these trends have such big implications, are so urgent, or are just moving so fast that planners and the profession have no choice but to stay on top of them. That’s where APA Foresight comes in. In partnership with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, APA’s research team has been looking into existing and emerging trends in the profession so that we can understand the drivers of change, learn how we can prepare for them, and identify when it is time for planners to act. For this article, we explore what you need to know about seven of the most pressing trends for the profession today.

1. Transit ridership has dropped low. Planners will need to aim high. During the COVID-19 pandemic, transit ridership tanked. New York City saw a 60 percent decrease in subway riders, while San Francisco reported a 90 percent loss of passengers using Bay Area Rapid Transit. The national number of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) has returned to pre-pandemic levels, but transit ridership is only slowly recovering (and in some places, barely so). There are other modes, like active transportation and shared micromobility options—plus potential newcomers in the next five to 10 years like autonomous vehicles and urban air mobility—that may seem like competitors to transit instead of promising partners.

A pandemic made it even more obvious that, in most cities, people who can afford to live close to transit are not always those who rely on it for mobility. Essential workers without the option to work remotely have faced service disruptions—and there were already access and quality issues before. On top of that, most cities’ transit systems were designed to serve downtown commuters working nine-to-five jobs, which captures a fraction of the transit need, and is even more clear as city centers continue to be underused.

As in-person activities resume, transit agencies and planners will need to rebuild confidence in local transit systems. Ridership patterns before the pandemic—and what became standard during the pandemic—should not be the baseline for transportation planning going forward. 

Agile transit solutions are needed to allow for more flexible options outside a nine-to-five work schedule and to accommodate changing mobility needs and behaviors. Equitable transit is imperative to serve those who need it. Partnerships and collaboration with emerging transportation systems will enable transit agencies to be nimble and ensure fair access for all. Meanwhile, transit systems need to expand their capabilities by making immediate improvements in service and reliability, as well as committing to long-term investments. 

2. Technology is transforming communities. Planners will need to adapt to capture the benefits. In the last two decades, we have moved from an information age to a digital era. Today, advances in digital technology affect almost every aspect in life: how people live, work, play, and move around town; how businesses communicate with their customers; and even how people make decisions on what jobs to apply for, who to befriend, or who to go on a date with. Though this digital era started only two decades ago, it has been accelerating at an unprecedented pace.

The concept of “smart cities” is a logical consequence and a development of this era, prompting the digital transformation of entire cities and communities. It includes not just the operation of a city and related processes, systems, and communication streams, but also the processes planners use to make plans for a community, collect and use data, and implement their plans.

In this digital era, it is vital that planners learn about smart city concepts and how they can use smart tech to achieve community goals so their communities can benefit from them instead of being harmed by them. Adjusting planning processes to this digital environment and adding new tools, relevant skills, and knowledge to the planner’s repertoire will be crucial for planners to be able to continue creating great communities for all. (A forthcoming PAS Report on smart cities will help fill the knowledge gap, defining smart cities as those that equitably integrate community, nature, and technology and that foster innovation, participation, and co-creation. The report, due later this year, also will explain the role of the planner and identify necessary skills, methods, and approaches. Stay tuned!)

3. Artificial intelligence is on the rise, but the human factor in planning is still crucial. Artificial intelligence has been in development since the 1950s. However, because of the availability of big data and increased computing power, the AI market has grown substantially over the last decade and is expected to grow 20 percent annually over the next few years. While the data-based automated decision-making capabilities of AI will create myriad opportunities to improve current planning processes, data gaps and algorithmic bias pose the risk of exacerbating existing inequalities—and even creating new ones.

Planners and allied professionals should have a strong understanding of the potential impacts and benefits posed by AI on the profession and their communities. AI is already reshaping the local landscape, and it is important to understand how planners can use AI equitably and sustainably. Some important issues to consider are privacy concerns, data quality, and the potential bias of AI.

Additionally, it will be important to emphasize the human factor of planning. While AI will enable us to automate repetitive and tedious tasks such as traffic counts, checking boxes on a list, or certain permitting processes, it won’t be able to replace the human being behind the planner, the change agent who can connect with the individual community members, and the facilitator who can listen to people’s needs and concerns.

4. High and varied demand on public space will require a balancing act. More and more activities are vying for a limited amount of public space. Sidewalks aren’t just pedestrian paths to a destination anymore (but were they ever?). They are also hubs for outdoor dining and farmers markets. When streets are too dangerous and bike lanes are nowhere to be found, sidewalks accommodate scooter riders and bicyclists. Soon, they might even become a path for little robots making autonomous deliveries. Meanwhile, plazas and parks are sites for public gatherings—from protests to picnics to concerts. Roads might handle automobile traffic on weekdays, but during weekends or evenings, they could seamlessly reconfigure into “no car zones.” And curbs are especially in high demand, whether they are for parking cars and micromobility vehicles, dropping off transit or rideshare passengers, or serving as zones for traditional or last-mile autonomous delivery.

People are always going to find a way to creatively shape the public realm. Planners need to foster spaces that are adaptable and responsive to the different types of people who use them. The key focus for planners will be to ensure accessibility and minimize exclusion when balancing these activities. Every community wants bustling public spaces, but planners understand that this should not come at the expense of people’s well-being.

With multiple players, functions, and purposes, planners need to redefine what “shared streets” can mean. They especially need to advocate for the most vulnerable (and traditionally, least protected) people who need and deserve access to public space, such as people with disabilities and those experiencing homelessness.

5. Climate action will take center stage—and have greater urgency. The first 100 days of the Biden administration established a promising policy environment for climate change action at all levels. Now, it’s up to planning practitioners to advance (or initiate) climate-related projects and plans.

Local and state officials have undoubtedly been leading the push for climate action in recent years. With renewed commitment at the national level, they can breathe a little easier. But the situation still requires urgent action. As hundreds of scientists recently announced, this is not a climate crisis anymore; it’s a climate emergency.

Planners can take advantage of federal and state funding, tools, and incentives to implement climate change mitigation and adaptation activities. This might include reducing carbon emissions by investing in renewable energy or supporting the green economy.

State and local governments can also expect more opportunities to engage with federal policy makers and to represent their unique perspective on climate action. And even though COVID-19 recovery might be a top priority in the short-term, climate action is compatible with these activities and can’t be pushed off any longer.

6. Communities are more diverse than ever. So are their needs and experiences. The increase in population diversity requires new planning approaches that can reflect the realities of people across various identities, such as race, age, gender, ability, or religion. This demands that planners view people as more than neat and tidy population groups, but rather as fully realized individuals with unique experiences and needs.

Most practitioners already recognize that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to planning. But the profession also needs to start reconsidering the idea that planning is neutral.

Integrating the context and situation of a community when choosing effective practices and solutions can lead to more conscious, intentional planning. In other words, planning needs to be more dynamic—not neutral—in order to be ready for diversity in the communities that planners serve.

Practitioners should be able to quickly tailor planning solutions to the needs of the least supported, most vulnerable individuals in a community. By pursuing planning exercises that consider life at the individual level, the profession can be more mindful of those who exist at the intersection of multiple identities and how planning solutions might impact them. This can humanize the individuals within a community instead of assuming the experiences of population groups are homogenous, resulting in more dynamic planning with more equitable results.

7. The future of work and workplaces will impact how we use urban space. During the COVID-19 lockdown in the spring of 2020, more than 60 percent of the U.S. workforce was working from home, and many continue to do so. The pandemic has accelerated the digitalization of work. Meanwhile, companies are rethinking their office space needs and considering work-from-anywhere policies or hybrids that allow for smaller to no office space, which comes with significant cost savings. The shift from central business districts to a decentralized, work-from-anywhere approach could bring myriad opportunities to change how we use urban space for the better, if planners are ready.

Previously residential-only neighborhoods will have to accommodate their remotely working residents, adding retail, restaurants and coffee shops, parks, and other amenities typically adjacent to offices. For workers who don’t have the space for an office at home or simply don’t want to stay home all day, neighborhood coworking spaces will be needed. Homogenous places will shift to mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods that allow the community to socialize and connect with one another.

Vacant office and retail spaces can be repurposed to affordable housing or coliving and coworking spaces. Obsolete parking spaces can be converted into neighborhood parks. Creative thinking can lead to solutions to the housing crisis, as well as the mental health crisis that stems from extended isolation and other traumas experienced during COVID-19.

Ultimately, if jobs are not a reason to move to a city anymore, improved quality of life will become the main attraction. So planners may need to redefine what gets prioritized in their communities accordingly.

The world keeps turning and change stops for no one. That’s why APA Foresight is here. APA researchers, in partnership with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, are already preparing for our next cycle of trend research to help the profession learn with and prepare for an uncertain future. 

This summer, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) declared the first official water shortage on the Colorado River. The declaration triggers mandatory cuts in withdrawals from the river, which supports more than 40 million people and 4.5 million acres of agriculture across seven U.S. states and two states in Mexico. While the announcement made both history and headlines, it came as no surprise to those in the Colorado River Basin who know the river best—the farmers, water utility managers, tribal leaders, state water management agencies, and others who have witnessed the severe impacts of the region’s decades-long drought and spent years making plans to address it.

“We knew this day would come, and it’s here,” said Brenda Burman, who served as commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, an agency of DOI that manages water in the West, from 2017 to 2021. “We need collective action on the river to address this situation.”

Burman joined former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt for “Lessons from the Colorado River,” a Lincoln Institute Dialogue hosted by Jim Holway, director of the Babbitt Center for Land and Water Policy, in early September. Their discussion was part of a series of virtual dialogues celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Lincoln Institute. It drew more than 500 registered participants from 43 U.S. states and 19 countries, including Turkey, Bangladesh, Colombia, and Kenya.

“We are at a critical juncture in the Colorado River Basin where we need to rethink our approaches and chart a long-term, sustainable course,” said Holway. “I can think of no one better equipped to help us understand these challenges than Bruce Babbitt and Brenda Burman, who have shaped Colorado River management, as both state and federal leaders, for over 40 years.”

Holway invited Burman to offer an overview of the Colorado River system, current conditions, and the complex 20th and 21st century agreements that govern its usage, including the 1922 Colorado River Compact that allotted water to each of the seven U.S. states in the basin; the 1944 agreement between the United States and Mexico that formalized the latter country’s rights to a share of the water; and the more recent interim guidelines of 2007 and Drought Contingency Plans (DCP) of 2019. The DCP, developed through a series of negotiations among the basin states, NGOs, tribal leaders, and the governments of the United States and Mexico, outlines how stakeholders along the river will share a resource that’s been depleted by a 22-year drought and is vulnerable to long-term climate change.

Both Burman and Babbitt emphasized the importance of a collaborative approach to managing the river. Burman identified the 1990s, and specifically Babbitt’s tenure at DOI (1993–2001), as “the time when we started coming together as a basin to find agreements, to find flexibility, to be able to use this resource.” Babbitt described cooperative management of the river as “a work in progress . . . working together, we’ve managed to come a long way.”

Babbitt was frank about the hard realities of the current situation, outlining serious potential impacts in the Lower Basin (which includes Arizona and parts of California and Nevada). For example, Babbitt said, agricultural operations in central Arizona that no longer have access to river water will pump groundwater instead, which will overtax groundwater reserves and dramatically reduce the amount of agricultural land in production. That shift could also curtail future development in the region because of state requirements that developers demonstrate adequate water supply for their projects. He voiced concern that a political and economic water war could result if speculators accelerate efforts to buy up farmland with senior water rights in other regions, with the goal of selling the associated water rights to others who need water.

Meanwhile, in the Upper Basin (which includes parts of Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah), Babbitt said the sheer number of small water districts is making it difficult to coordinate a response to the drought. He noted that in Colorado, urban areas could be the first to feel the impact of cuts due to the structure of various management agreements. “It isn’t easy to turn off the faucet, because there are so many hands on the faucet,” he said. Still, he struck a cautiously optimistic tone: “These changes don’t happen overnight. There is time still to find a pathway toward a more sustainable balance as these changes take place.”

During the conversation, Babbitt, Burman, and Holway identified several elements of successful watershed management—collaboration, diversity, public engagement, and nonpartisan approaches—and suggested that the Colorado River can serve as a model for other places facing complex resource management problems in an era of climate change. “The lessons we are learning here, and the binational collaborative approaches, serve as examples for other arid and semi-arid river basins throughout the world,” Holway said.

Some of the necessary next steps in the Colorado River Basin include agreeing to additional shortage reductions in individual state water allocations; improving water efficiency; settling outstanding tribal water claims; addressing tribal water infrastructure needs; and establishing fair and equitable water sharing arrangements between agricultural, urban, and tribal water users. The speakers agreed there are promising signs that these steps are achievable, including the ability to agree on previous rounds of Colorado River water cuts; an uptick in wastewater reuse and in local efforts to increase water efficiency and conservation; and growing recognition of the connection between local land use and water management policy. Holway cites Colorado’s Land and Water Planning Alliance as an excellent example of collaboration around actions local government and local water users can take.

As drought and climate change continue to put immense pressure on the Colorado River and other regional water supplies, stakeholders throughout the basin will have to confront not only the current shortage, but also the prospect of more to come. “We are facing a warmer, drier present and a warmer, drier future,” Burman said. “We have a history of coming together, but the time to do more is now . . . . I have a lot of faith that we can do it.”

A recording of the Colorado River webinar is available online, along with related links including the recently updated Colorado River StoryMap created by the Babbitt Center team. The special 75th anniversary Lincoln Institute Dialogue series continues on October 27 with a discussion about land-based financing. Learn more about the Lincoln Institute’s 75th anniversary and related events. 

Katharine Wroth is the editor of Land Lines. 

Photo Credit: Sean Pavone/iStock via Getty Images.