The Penn Institute for Urban Research recently asked a dozen experts to weigh in on the topic of urban infrastructure in the United States. More specifically: What should the US do? It is a direct response to President Trump’s inauguration speech, where he described America’s infrastructure in terms of “disrepair and decay.”

The urban experts include Eugénie L. Birch, Saskia Sassen, Susan Wachter, Richard P. Voith, and many others. Richard Voith’s piece is called, Historical Patterns of Infrastructure Funding. (I was his teaching assistant while I was at Penn and I still follow his work.) 

I found it interesting how infrastructure funding has shifted from the federal level to the local municipal level – especially in the realm of public transit. Given the rise of urban centers, this makes intuitive sense. But Voith also argues that “relying only on local funding of transportation will almost certainly result in an under supply of infrastructure.”

For the full Expert Voices series, click here. I think many of you will like it.

This is what it looks like in Mont-Tremblant right now:

It’s currently -11 degrees celsius and it’s expected to snow for most of the day. It’s starting to come down right now. But this evening it’s supposed to warm up to +1 degrees celsius, which means it may turn into (freezing) rain. I hope we see a lot more snow than rain. Nobody wants an icy mountain.

If you’re looking for things to read this morning, here are 3 pieces:

1. In American Towns, Private Profits From Public Works. It’s a NY Times article talking about how cash-strapped towns are turning to private equity firms to pay for their infrastructure. 

2. How Zoning Laws Shaped New York City Over the Last Century. This is about an exhibition being held at The Museum of the City of New York right now. The rules we make shape our built environment. Thanks John for the link.

3. Authenticity, and how Snapchat is banking on it. I am very fascinated by Snap Inc.’s ability to think differently and adopt counterintuitive business strategies. There’s also a cultural dimension to all of this.

Last weekend over dinner, a friend of mine asked me what I thought about the Scarborough Subway Extension debate going on in Toronto right now. Costs are coming in higher than initially projected and the usual back and forth is taking place. Transit blogger Steve Munro has a good post on this called Spinning a Tale in Scarborough.

I haven’t written much about the Scarborough Subway, but I do have a strong opinion. I believe it’s a mistake. I am not saying that we shouldn’t be building higher order transit in Scarborough – we absolutely should – but it does not need to be an expensive subway line. There are more sensible solutions.

Here are a few things to consider:

Light rail transit (LRT) does not equal streetcar. As an avid user of the King streetcar, I’ll be the first to admit that something needs to be done to address the city’s busiest streetcar routes. They are broken. But this is not what was being previously contemplated for Scarborough. True LRT – which Toronto does not yet have – is far more effective at moving people.

Scarborough Centre is seeing almost no new residential and commercial development. In fact, the “Centres” in general are not seeing much development. The largest share is happening downtown, along the central waterfront, and along the “Avenues.” We shouldn’t ignore this when making our investment decisions. Transit and built form go hand in hand. 

I also do not buy the argument that we are building this subway in anticipation of demand 50 or 100 years from now. We are not in a position to be proactive about our infrastructure. We are desperately playing catch up and there are already lots of high growth and high density areas in the city which today are completely underserved by higher order transit. 

Finally, a new subway line with low ridership will mean higher operating cost subsidies to keep it afloat. And at the rate that Scarborough Centre is growing today, this would likely continue for many years into the future. Not only is this debate about spending money today, it is about spending money well in the future, month after month.

So let’s be clear: the Scarborough Subway Extension debate is about politics. It is not about transportation planning.

The Penn Institute for Urban Research recently asked a dozen experts to weigh in on the topic of urban infrastructure in the United States. More specifically: What should the US do? It is a direct response to President Trump’s inauguration speech, where he described America’s infrastructure in terms of “disrepair and decay.”

The urban experts include Eugénie L. Birch, Saskia Sassen, Susan Wachter, Richard P. Voith, and many others. Richard Voith’s piece is called, Historical Patterns of Infrastructure Funding. (I was his teaching assistant while I was at Penn and I still follow his work.) 

I found it interesting how infrastructure funding has shifted from the federal level to the local municipal level – especially in the realm of public transit. Given the rise of urban centers, this makes intuitive sense. But Voith also argues that “relying only on local funding of transportation will almost certainly result in an under supply of infrastructure.”

For the full Expert Voices series, click here. I think many of you will like it.

This is what it looks like in Mont-Tremblant right now:

It’s currently -11 degrees celsius and it’s expected to snow for most of the day. It’s starting to come down right now. But this evening it’s supposed to warm up to +1 degrees celsius, which means it may turn into (freezing) rain. I hope we see a lot more snow than rain. Nobody wants an icy mountain.

If you’re looking for things to read this morning, here are 3 pieces:

1. In American Towns, Private Profits From Public Works. It’s a NY Times article talking about how cash-strapped towns are turning to private equity firms to pay for their infrastructure. 

2. How Zoning Laws Shaped New York City Over the Last Century. This is about an exhibition being held at The Museum of the City of New York right now. The rules we make shape our built environment. Thanks John for the link.

3. Authenticity, and how Snapchat is banking on it. I am very fascinated by Snap Inc.’s ability to think differently and adopt counterintuitive business strategies. There’s also a cultural dimension to all of this.

Last weekend over dinner, a friend of mine asked me what I thought about the Scarborough Subway Extension debate going on in Toronto right now. Costs are coming in higher than initially projected and the usual back and forth is taking place. Transit blogger Steve Munro has a good post on this called Spinning a Tale in Scarborough.

I haven’t written much about the Scarborough Subway, but I do have a strong opinion. I believe it’s a mistake. I am not saying that we shouldn’t be building higher order transit in Scarborough – we absolutely should – but it does not need to be an expensive subway line. There are more sensible solutions.

Here are a few things to consider:

Light rail transit (LRT) does not equal streetcar. As an avid user of the King streetcar, I’ll be the first to admit that something needs to be done to address the city’s busiest streetcar routes. They are broken. But this is not what was being previously contemplated for Scarborough. True LRT – which Toronto does not yet have – is far more effective at moving people.

Scarborough Centre is seeing almost no new residential and commercial development. In fact, the “Centres” in general are not seeing much development. The largest share is happening downtown, along the central waterfront, and along the “Avenues.” We shouldn’t ignore this when making our investment decisions. Transit and built form go hand in hand. 

I also do not buy the argument that we are building this subway in anticipation of demand 50 or 100 years from now. We are not in a position to be proactive about our infrastructure. We are desperately playing catch up and there are already lots of high growth and high density areas in the city which today are completely underserved by higher order transit. 

Finally, a new subway line with low ridership will mean higher operating cost subsidies to keep it afloat. And at the rate that Scarborough Centre is growing today, this would likely continue for many years into the future. Not only is this debate about spending money today, it is about spending money well in the future, month after month.

So let’s be clear: the Scarborough Subway Extension debate is about politics. It is not about transportation planning.