crisis mode, we all know long-term fixes at the highway trust fund are public. how do we deal with gas tax and vehicle miles and the country is becoming increasingly urbanized and a lot of urban dwellers don't drive but they use the roads for goods and services. how do we deal with that? it is complicated. last night i lay out in the washington post and idea that has got a lot of momentum ever since we started talking about it. ..

let's change our international tax system to move to a modified territorial system which is what most of the world does which means pay tax locally on your earnings and if you want to bring it back to your home country bring it back tax-free unless where you pay tax as a particularly low tax rate have to grow set up to a minimum so if someone sets up a zero tax payment you still have to pay taxes to bring the money back but the place the charges 25% tax like our competitors you bring it back tax-free so that is our framing. let's lift up, take this bipartisan support around a party should to build america

act and potentially do something bigger like take the insolvency of the table for six years and give us time to fix it, take some of the money and create the american infrastructure fund. this way we will walk away with the clear net increase in the money in this country to create the jobs and make ourselves more competitive and at the same time fix this international tax system so money can flow. this would be so transforming live to the short-term job creation opportunities in this country and the long-term competitiveness of this country it would be a singular historic move. the good news is we are coming to this debate already from up by partisan perspective. some momentum on the partnership to build america act proves that both parties want to do this. both parties want to increase investment in infrastructure. both parties want to fix the international tax system.

one thing we are going to focus on is how to take that momentum and not just do the partnership to build america act but potentially do something bigger. that is where my focus is on infrastructure. great to have your support, bruce, great to be here and have this opportunity to talk. many experts are applying on this subject. again i want to thank the whole of brookings, it is a single institution and makes an incredible contribution and i want to thank our individual supporters in this room who have been so helpful on the momentum we have been creating and you have been there with us from the beginning and you have been constant supporters and it has helped our efforts immensely and i want to thank everyone for taking time to listen to what i have to say today and i am an optimist. we can fix these problems. is a good first step to make this country more competitive, create jobs and in 10 or 15 years when we have

infrastructure week we are celebrating all the success we had so thank you. [applause] >> good morning, everybody. it was the jab congressman delaney, the thoughtful proposal that he has discussed in congress, bipartisan, we always like it when it is bipartisan, an elegant solution, something that is creative and we like it. that is a really important thing particularly for the close of infrastructure week. i am a senior fellow at the brookings institution. manage interpol and infrastructure initiative, and welcome to infrastructure weak 2014. 4 those who are following on the web cast or falling on the tv,

wants to invite you to join the conversation. rebuild renews the hash tag and joy in the robust trader conversation that is happening throughout the week. we have an excellent panel but before i get into that, the key themes and discussion points the we heard this week starting back on monday so even though we were certainly successful at our initial goal which was to ramp up infrastructure and push it to the front burner of the national discourse. as bruce and the congressman talked about something we think is very critical, we have to talk about. we have got to move the conversation to action and having the president and vice president talk about it we want to make sure it is not just a conversation that is reverberating throughout the echo chamber in washington. it obviously matters for all the reasons we talked about, it matters what is going on in

congress and the highway trust fund and what happens with the midterm. it this is not the only conversation about infrastructure in america today. is not the entire story. is not even reflective of the washington conversation. there are a lot of ideas out there. talking more optimistically we need to get to figure out what we can do in america today. is also not reflective of the conversation because infrastructure is so very broad and multifaceted. it is not just about roads and bridges, that matters for all the reasons we know about particularly after the horrible winter, all the stuff going on and transportation matters but by limiting the discussion of infrastructure to that narrow band particularly narrowing it to road and bridges we are failing to recognize the multifaceted way we are delivering, designing,

government and financing a range of infrastructure projects in this country so i was encouraged to hear a lot of areas -- metro program we think about infrastructure in seven different ways and we talk about transportation those in from metropolitan area transportation. ..

it standing to water and other areas. aso the things that we ditched this week one is the infrastructure matters. this is hov we heard from the beginning of a big event in the chamber counsel we brought and business leaders talk fundamentally about infrastructure and not just what it's doing on the ground up how it enables them to do their business and compete globally. we need to create more jobs in the countracountry as we put out this week showing 11% of jobs are in this infrastructure not just interact jobs but he lived in% of the american workforce.

this was echoed by policy week of the afl-cio is there a direct connection between the american workforce. we also heard of major disruptions affecting. the washington political discussion is no doubt about it that there is democratic into the groove so we are expecting. how do we make sure people get the jobs and public transit all of that is important and disruptive. how do we design water

infrastructure so it is sustainable and obviously the flooding commission is here today but the main preoccupation was running finance. this was the kind of theme throughout the week how do we get things done in this difficult era but also we heard about solutions. who is thinking differently and how can they learn from one another fix it is clear that in some areas of transportation or infrastructure like chance perdition we have to find them in traditional ways. we talked about raising the gasoline tax in wyoming and maryland and we talked about

chance perdition for america helping the states get ready to see if they are willing to raise money for transportation infrastructure. it's something we will see merging. the second new partnerships. combinations of the public and the private not simplistic notions about privatization purely private profits but finding ways to get things and connecting this with traditional areas of instruction so we can get things done in a unique way and what they are doing to develop standardization, transparency and develop a

pipeline of projects that works. it's true none of these are going to solve all of the infrastructure problems because there is no silver bullet solution that in addition to the parity of fixing the trust fund that has been a steady theme throughout the week, but private financiers and find peace have to do the hard work to get done. it's not going to be easy but i'm encouraged about the new innovators come in new generations of activities working to fill the gap so with thwhatabout that recent discusse want to have today so i'm going to introduce the panelists quickly. their biographies on the backs so you can read them.

they will highlight innovations in which they are engaged into their general thoughts about the conversations going on now for us to the director of projects. he'll talk about the engagement underway to catalyze the transformation not just for the city services but water and energy, waste into transportation but how that relates to economic growth and stability. he was trained as an architect and became the father of twins. he will be the ceo of the refocused partners into the

collaborative firm with the resilient infrastructure across water into transportation and you may be the only person up here that's given the adaptation requirements tool. next the new organization working to catechize across the infrastructure with an emphasis on the transportation of a broad range of expertise both from the policy side in the practical side. she was the director of cities which is literally i think on the other side of the wall. and finallthen finally we will e director of economic development where he is responsible for the wider range of activities

including neighborhood development so i don't know if he has spare time but we will hear from him. what may be an unnatural act we don't have a big presentation but we did want to make this more active. we are going to go to the audience road to flee quickly for questions and again for those of you following use the hash tag read build an arena. certainly we will get to those as we follow up throughout the week. please join me in welcoming the panel. kostka >> thank you all for allowing me

to speak with you this morning. the image that you see on the screen is one that you've seen before. it's tends to illustrate the population into conventional thinking that may have led to both of those things. and the host of private partners we think it's something differendifferent if maybe the f an an incredible opportunity for the transformative innovation particularly in the infrastructure and looking at things differently than the way we may have looked at them in the past. we have the opportunity to stabilize the city as a whole, increase revenue and ensure that we can improve the health of those in the southeast michigan region to insure we can

establish the systems. to ensure equity along the way and last provide a resilience that doesn't have it certainly needs it. as we've done a few projects and i will talk to you about that this morning, we think there are lessons here not just for legacy cities like new york and north america but also those that are urbanizing across the globe. it could be for johannesburg. they matter globally and we can begin to deal with those into the polarization of a legacy city in the u.s. and urban city

somewhere else remains to be seen as a kind of line infected the circle that comes back and said the proximity is quite close to. we have a freeway as you might imagine and many of these are directly the next neighborhoods compared to the national average that isn't by chance for the specific species in the output and particular commander from getting into the neighborhood we are in the middle of developing these rights now.

given that we were experiencing outside right now. that is the equivalent to the size of manhattan. how might we deal with the storm run off given that 22% of the water supply 84% of the fresh water coming u.s. freshwater supply need to be stewards. we overwhelmed the system and we do a direct discharge.

it's a global asset that can make the changes hereby deplore in soft systems 21st century blue infrastructure systems that use the land to soak up the water controversy. at the same time we can use all this land for food and energy into begin think about how food production in the city can work to satisfy the city as a whole. we see the different projects startup and can go to a large-scale. but also providing energy

through the biomass and a host of other things. 90,000 people live there and these folks have needs of cour course. nobody is getting dislocated. how do we develop the on-call networks that allow people to get around more easily without requiring a dedicated bus come down their streets five-time survey.

flipping the liabilities into assets we will continue doing that as we move forward. [applause] stick good morning. i am here at refocused partners. thanks to all of you that braved the rain. i was going to ask you to start picturing into this isn't a stretch of the imagination for those of you that are here in

dc. there are flash flood warnings today about running off the streets through the large pipes and headed into the water treatment plants were straight into the lake and rivers. when the system works well it's designed to keep the water clean. but when the system fails us what you see our basements that flood and backup. a country is very dealing with this problem isn't just washington, d.c.. many have infrastructure systems that are a in hundred or 150 or older. they were not defined for the way that we are using them tod today. in a cities across the u.s.

leading the engineering, legal and finance firm to think how we both design and finance for systems like the water system. so think back with all of the rain that's coming today and imagine how it works like a giant funnel and carry it out to the rivers i want you to picture the city working more like a sponge. holding the water in place that is a different type of your effect about replacing pipes under the street and water mains with tens of thousands of pieces of parks, trees, pavement absorbs water.

we've redesigned the systems and create portfolios of infrastructure. we have eight partners around the country from miami beach to provoke and new jerse broken neo milwaukee in el paso they are not liked each other but they face the same challenges they need to build infrastructure for the next hundred years. two examples one from miami and one from hoboken. it's a city that's been featured in the news when you hear about the resiliency will hear an article on miami beach on a sunny day as flooding.

our team couldn't believe it until we drove to different places where there was just water in the road. the problem isn't just flooding. they are pushing up through the sources. they are coping well and leading the charge but know this can't work forever so we are working with them to redesigned to think about how you hold up the city differently in the insurance rates hoboken that faces challenges on the front page of the news after hurricane cindy the city at one point had 14 feet of standing water.

it was built for a different time and the city knows they need to do different things. we are working on some of their parcels of land to think through through not just thinking about what her but looking at how can we build systems underground but also to combine that with things like parking garages that can serve as overflow spaces of intense rain like hurricane cindy and put things on the surface that creates recreational spaces and parks for the city that is incredibly dense.

it's about building whole systems. in order to finance infrastructure, we are interested in finding multiple ways to pay for the same project where you can combine the parking fees with attracting corporations to demonstrate technologies and innovation parks to picture your favorite museum and showcase communities for kids what resilience looks like for the next 100 years in a public park to showcase here is how we can generate electricity in the wastewater system. but it looks like to turn waste into energy a lot of our our challenges especially with resilient infrastructure is when we are successful in building

the systems because success is something that doesn't happen. that's fantastic for one year. [laughter] and the next year you're fired. we are finding new ways to not just combine the systems that we are working to make sure they are clear and visible for the public entity into the government. all of you will find this familiar. on the left-hand side you see a collection of what the city needs. each part of a city has different needs. a city governments tend to be

organized in silence of the transportation office, the broadband office and more interestingly, the banks tend to think in layers. they want projects where they are not the only ones investing and you can stack up capital investors to be able to pay for everything what we do is to align the systems with financing and our goal is to be able to take the dream house and turned it into a blueprint and help make the leave it to the mortgage document. we need help translating those

ideas. this is not a problem of not enough money or need as you heard from detroit. our challenge is to combine these things in a way that is replicable so what we do is like a little bit like an olympics. we work not just on the systems design but we also work with legal experts to deliver 10,000 pieces and not just one water treatment plant and then what are the different ways you can bring together the different streams with user fees and also savings, the successes that do not happen somewhere and maybe

spend doesn't flood how do i catch the money and to redirect it to the project? we hope that he is not just illegal but they had for the last hundred years that we aim to get them for the next hundred. [applause] i'm going to show a painting work on walsh because i'm part of a new civic philanthropy and we are just getting started so it's exciting to talk about what's going on with us but this is a beautiful piece by an artist that works with the

concept and you can say she makes the unknown quite beautiful and i wanted to use that as a starting point for how we are thinking about infrastructure and above all that we can play in making a change. we just got started and there are so many amazing experts banging on the door. what we want to do is bring together all the people, the partners, the organizations, the cities come the private sector and making them more to make these things happen. we looked at how to improve the writer experience, the general citizens experience of getting around the city. we know what it's like to be unable to heal for a cab come at

you never know when the bus is going to show up. we all understand this and in fact this is one of the greatest inhibitors of people getting the jobs we talk about creating jobs and the enabler of the labor markets and jobs and people accessing jobs. it's one of those things that is overlooked by conventional transportation as usual. we have to organize it. that isn't going to work anymore and people have really unusual schedules. you have people that need to go to the doc or once a month on a tuesday and in the middle of the afternoon you have people working from home so since the schedules are no longer as predictable as you shall so what's going on now is there's a huge number of participation

that's creating this economy but what is amazing is that people are participating. this has been enabled by technology and smartphones and that ther.there is an equity ist there is also nearly emerging evidence of the 72% of americans that have smartphones. they don't have access to wi-fi they just use their phone to access internet. so we are seeing a glimmer of what can happen. it's no longer the top-down supply-side. it's how to reduce friction in the market, how do you get people to move around and what's going on is taking the lead. they are doing this in spite of all of the constraints and

you've heard about the company is being banned from cities. i think this is the wrong approach. they are providing a public infrastructure service to your citizens in a way that yes challenges everything we know what is actually making people able to get around the city. that's an area that we have to be courageous and i don't think it is a terribly negative thing to do. there is a lot we can figure out together. one of the things we are sponsoring a major study, 12,000 person sample size public attitude on transit. we will be releasing results in

the course of this year. the second thing is what kind of leadership does it take to make it happen? over the last ten years we have seen cities across the country be able to lead innovation and they've been doing it without a federal policy push with the mayors and commissioners we are interested in figuring that out. we want to create situations where the different factors come together and talk about things. when that happens and they are also being re- streamed through the competition that is negative come find by outdated policy

unable to make progress on updating th that policy and we t to create a situation people can come together and talk about these things so on june the tenth and 11th we show the nobility so sharing the operators are working on this at the policymakers are coming together to talk about the solutions that could be working. also how can we update this and define the relationships between the private sector that's taken its leadership path and the existing government structures. that is something that will be in the partnership later this year. finally we are interested in changing practice and i mentioned that the leaders are really writing the playbook and

we think partnerships with cities with pacific sector and the private sector into trying to implement these new ideas is the way to go. they're figuring it out on their own to bring people together to combine the public with a private interest and maximize the benefit so i hope you'll join us on our journey. thank you for allowing me to explain the transit center. [applause] hello. my name is eric and i did bureaucratic this bunch. in my spare time i think about infrastructure which is why i'm here. i'm excited to talk about the transatlantic infrastructure in the salt lake city region which

has been the manifestation of a significant around us toward a nation and collaboration between cities, counties and states. this wasn't easy given the fact that it was an island of blue in a sea of red that we all came together to work on improved air quality and then increase the potential for the region. of his lasting effects in the fact that 80% of people that live in utah within the stretch between august with the largest city in the middle of the a hund 80,000. the population blooms to 370,000 during the day. a lot of success is by having strong regional partners. the chamber was an advocate for

transportation choice and has done amazing regional transportation that has been implemented by our partners and then they utah transit authority that operates in an efficient system. we estimated the impact of the regional transportation is about $7 billion which is amazing. the top is the line that requires some of our collaboration to realize the success i have housing transportation, economic and planning in my department and we were able to collaborate looking at the zoning and the stakeholders and the developers to map out.

the first opened up and 99 and connected to the downturn to university of utah and cost about $200 billion today created $1.6 billion in investment and it's still ongoing. but i still want to talk about on of the other line that opened up and it goes along the north temple which is for the west side which has the economic indicators and so when we talk about this if the buzz in nice place but how do we categorize the main street and how do we focus on supporting small businesses but also connecting our major job centers x. this goes down to the airport and includes major private employees

but focus on small business. if if you can't see the red has the best chili colorado in terms of the diners, drivers i can attest to that. the family business around 55 years, the fastest growing located at 17% that year. she is creating hits and allowed a whole new market to come and connect to verizon to enjoy the outstanding colorado but for other small businesses that create the same and we are connecting not only job centers but also opportunities for small businesses.

also, the wind in the middle is the streetcar line to under the leadership of the city council we are rebuilding the system in salt lake city so this was a 50 million-dollar project that came from tiger money and apparently it happened pretty quickly, so we identified the te right-of-way in 2009 and secured in 2011 and had a revenue surplus of 2013. we know how to get things done. so it's transformed the community so it stands for the southlake line and sugarhouse

where all the teenagers hung out and it's an economic hub. we had $4 million in investment, 400,000 of retail, 300,000 of new office and a thousand new housing units created in the past four years so finally the front-runner that is at the bottom that can be a 6 million-dollar project that opened in 2013 and it changed how we felt about our suburbs but about economic and rail. it's now become the home to a new campus for adobe, ebay and one project alone 700,000 square feet of new office. so the suburbs over bumps

thinking about transient development and it is changing how the cities developed and revitalize them to think about how they can transform the downtown hubs. in the handle of this investmens investment into infrastructure also includes people for what we have done is we did a study and found that while he had a great regional system, but the majority of the residents make shorter trips if they make more frequent trips between are priced at a reasonable rate so we put in $200,000, partnered with the utah transit authority and created an annual path specifically for salt lake residents of the price of $360,000 a year.

at the price of $360 a year. i am so proud of this project and we put a significant amount of time. it's created this goal of reducing the troops of increasing the ridership being responsive to help a local functions that see entire targets reach 1500 of them and we have a target of about 7,000 so we will see this happen specifically outreach into the renters and low income which brings me to my final point at the end that it's great to talk about economic development. all of this is moot if we are

not creating economic opportunities are one of the best things we have seen is we have a guy that had recently gone out of homelessness but was able to secure $350 a year for a transit pass and was able to connect him from this new house to his new job at sugarhouse so that's what this works about and thank you very much. [applause] >> calling the congressman and the discussion we've already had here this afternoon. one of the common things we heard through the remarks it

does take a bunch of different people to get these done because it is getting more complex it is multifaceted and we have different motivations and endgames it does require people working together to make things happen but we also appreciate the fact we have specific places and it's very helpful but once we get down we have to be talking about what this means on the ground on the cities. it's going to help us understand where the challenges are and all of you giving one of your biggest headaches tha what is wd ithat is onething you wake up ed you are just like i have to deal with that one thing or if i can break through that one area of my life would be easier. i'm going to start with you.

what could you change if you could crack the rebuilding things faster. it's been great to talk to her partners about how to streamline our approval process and what we are trying to do right now is bundle as much as possible so when the money shows up we are able to build it faster and not get the approval bill so how can we lay out the full system now so that when the investment comes up we are able to capitalize very quickly? spinet is creating a culture of working into the sharing aspect calls for the collaboration. cross sector collaboration, civic private and that is unusual in the last decade that we have had on the top-down supply-side provisions of

transportation. often i find myself in conversations where i think this is a transaction. we need to work together. i have nothing against you but that his engine during a new culture of working. there's probably two things to hit on. one is more transaction and one is at a higher level. first off the getting access to capital can be a challenge on a good day. as we know things of detroit are not as good as we would like them to be, but we also recognize there are opportunities to draw on the funding and we see that through a host of partners that it's always difficulalwaysdifficult e potential investor when you are describing this library showed that the bake in the areas we

know will undergird opportunities for the economic development down the road but certainly interact to those. the second i think the time to articulate a story that isn't typically told and how we might utilize these spaces, we think the spaces are very highly relatable to the efforts that are underway in areas like the central business district. we are seeing incredibly robust growth and greater downtown. significant investment overall. there are transportations coming into play so we don't want to bring everybody down and to challenge them we want to put them into the relationship of the others that are necessary and how they support one anoth

another. i'm going to take the liberty of putting in two of them. i find that when talking about infrastructure we are able to incredibly things. i find nothing that done and we can shift from issues to problem solving we will see greater success on the ground. the other wish list item that i have is to drop a love of the jargon so i can hold my own on acronyms so the bottom line is we need to pay for things that create multiple value. we need to understand where the money is coming from. >> this is something we have been testing out and we are trying to define because the

word doesn't mean infrastructure. there is water and transport and they are designed and built and everything but shoving your comment what you are trying to do is marry these things. is that a bigger challenge because that is how it's done or is it to buy the way we try to break it down and disaggregate the infrastructure i think the opportunities are at the seams. we have experienced the years we can't build a freestanding system that we originally built 50 years ago. it puts the cities at a disadvantage because it doesn't give them the chance to solve the problems.

it's easy to put in the broadband that has the company tear up the street a second ti time. we spend a huge amount of our time in the bureaucratic system reminding people that hasn't itt been done it's not allowed. we've learned to speak government and wall and engineering and finance. >> for all of you you are trying to solve other problems. it's enabling you to do what you did at the end of the day

>> we are thinking about the growing a colony and planning for the future so people will be cunning and using this infrastructure will be thinking about the way we are doing this as saying we are not getting into the jargon predicting better legibility for creating greater literacy and actually creating leadership capabilities that you can handle double discussions without dumbing everything down. it's been exciting for us in detroit we are trying to make sure the investments we put in place today and many of them are not terribly sexy. [laughter]

they will yield significant results down the road but these are big plays we are trying to make. -- the tenth of 15 efforts. folkfolks like us are looking fr the medium relief but if you are looking at a long-term disaster -- >> we kind of mediator between the world and the long-term reality. there are a lot of folks in detroit and extreme need that have expectations that don't live in the need which is also interesting to balance the people understand in many cities across the u.s. these can be dulled over time. they will take generations and one thing we asked is to think beyond the roadblock neighborhood and not just what makes the most sense on the ground and you have to think about your own time.

these are going to bear fruit for our children, not perhaps for ourselves overall and it's just something people need to wrap their mind around. one other piece to this what we see as an opportunity on the road given the infrastructure efforts to be made today we see that contrast in the past issues and has betrayed submitted a federal play for the regional light rail system that could become operational by 1992, the year i graduated high school. that's never happened, because oof courseof course the beheadif regional cooperation, one county opt out. everything thought of the -- downtown actually it doesn't connect folks do anything to be honest and so what we see is

where detroit is today and then we look at salt lake city, we look at denver and all the cities that were needed at that point. point. point. what this meant some transparency to equity we know how far we've come behind and now we have to surge forward. >> 50 years from now will we have built the infrastructure in a way that creates a resilient city or can we think about the rules right now for infrastructure right now and change their processes. >> to respond to what they said on the long term. if there is a deep dark secret with most government entities if that we lose money and as we have long-term problems we will just lose more. it's not that we are just losing money today for helping the communities find solutions to

figure out what they are spending money on today that they don't want to spend money on. on. a lot of them have a basement cleanup fund and are not allowed to use that water to prepare the broader meaning. so it's not thinking about on certain things 50 years from now. start where you are feeling now and that is where you will fail. >> that one common theme i think i heard from each of you in very different ways is about partnerships. i think that you mentioned that and it's become so clear in our work that it's not the thing we think about what private partnershipit puts privatepartng the parking meter that it's about the different ways the public and private and nonprofit are coming together to solve the problems. the infrastructure stuff is almost derivative of that.

can you -- does anyone want to echo how important are they and how different is that from a few years to do? >> the partnerships are in. if you stick to the project and i think everyone wants the project for different reasons and that's okay. we don't need to have one common outcome or message. the idea is the chamber wanted for economic development and they want it for a recall of the. and everyone is able to use it. so that is one of the things that is successful about the partnerships in utah is that we all just wanted to see it built. ..

>> i was just thinking about the partnerships even on an atomizer level, one pearson. you do sherry happening now, people able to share risk and they're able to reap the rewards for doing the. in fact, on the philanthropy side one of the things that we decided to do was be an operating philanthropy because we wanted to help direct and have input on the design of the projects of people didn't fall back to the way they usually do things. we wanted to be able to keep them on tracks on taking risk and being brave, and so these kinds of partnerships i feel are

really necessary for the new dynamism. >> is a center. there's no one right now who can solve these problems alone so we have to do things together. >> as obvious as that is due, i don't think that's quite -- will keep talking about the partnership. i think it is important. i'm going to violate my rule, i did want to throw it open for folks to ask questions in the time we have left, so go ahead and identify yourself, your affiliation and the question has to end and a question mark. your voice and go up at the end so it's a question. >> i'm with the national association of railroad passengers and i'd like to know, how do you distinguish of the importance and the oftentimes economically ask essential importance of these kinds of problems and joint are not simply a nice thing to have, not just an important thing but if we don't invest in the economy,

well, what will exist without it really, you know? >> how do we make infrastructure not about infrastructure sake lex how do you break through the communications? what's the most important thing? >> i think it's finding catalyst, finding the places that the problem in its absence. as devastating as hurricane sandy was it woke up a lot of communities to what happens when they don't do something. and there are a lot of different catalogs. you want to wait for disaster to pick moments where resource is stretched to have a conversation with the community about what delights would look like in the absence. >> has sandy change that conversation or is this something like the minneapolis bridge collapse? got excited about it and then it fell off the radar? it seems like it has stuck around. >> it has stuck. we have to applaud cities like hoboken that a ticket on all hands on deck approach to their

-- they're reworking everything. working with the department of energy, working with hud on rebuild by design as a competition to rework the entire city's water and fudge amendment systems. they're working with us. i think it has stuck and exchanged both the urgency but also the sense of what is involved. it's not just a one sector problem. >> i think you just have to -- every time we had a station opened up, the governor came out, the mayor came out, we all cheered. we all cheered so the idea in the end is someone can't say, the system doesn't work and its total because you have to celebrate and articulate and show that every iteration is a win. >> what got that done? >> willies smart people and amazing staff. i mean, that's my shout out to the. i told him i had to do that. which is also true.

>> other questions ?-que?-que x right down here. >> rob, actually want to address this probably with you and maybe shin-pei. i don't know, i sampled some of these events this week in the don't know how much this been talked about. we are in a situation of enormous needs, some opportunities, and scarce public resources. we have to be able to prioritize, to choose sometimes within sectors, sometimes across sectors. we have resilience. how do we -- wasn't even on a raid or maybe five or 10 years ago the fact that we have to prepare for three and four-foot increases in sea levels in the next few decades which is a whole other set of needs. as you know, i've been struck by the fact we do not have in this messy federal republic of ours,

we do not have a really good analytical transportation -- or infrastructure planning or capital programming process in place. how do we make decisions better in which some needs are viewed as more important than others, and some opportunities more beneficial than others? and what's the role of the federal government in driving states and localities and metropolitan regions to establish the systems? we know there are very few places that have defective analytical and decision-making processes about infrastructure investments. how do we change and improve that situation? >> i'm going to take a crack at the non-federal level. i think i will let rob do with that but i am, on how to prioritize on the local novel i think one of the things that you

have sitting going on is the openness in sharing information and data from the city government to the public. and this has amazing analysis by just the public. they have an interest in functioning transportation. they want to be able to get around. so, for example, cities like new york city recently released a set of data and the rubin said or did an analysis on this and showed that during a subway delay there were more trips taken near the subway stations immediately as soon as the mta released that notice of the delay over text. they were more trips, bikes being taken rapid transit stations than in other places but it was only during that time. it was not a recurring trips we knew it wasn't a -- it was just in response to billy. you can see that in general, that means we now know where those transit hubs are and what people are making the last mile

effort where they actually can use a boost in getting connected to the major transit hubs. those are under examined areas, and with open that i think there's a better, better potential, more potential to understand where we should be putting our dollars. >> and it doesn't have to be a formal process. the mayors and leadership to say how does your plan tie-in to the of the plan. i don't think that question happens a lot and i'm very fortunate in having all those divisions underneath and we are having about 12 planning efforts happening right now from bicycles to trains to housing, but i'm constantly asking where they connect, how the overlap, are you so blind -- same language or data. instead of being one big launch of an infrastructure planning effort, how do you align existing efforts and make sure they are saying the same thing, representing things the same way and having time horizons what tt

you don't see in a lot of cities i forgot before. >> just to follow up, i think this is accountable trying to get, despite the hampering in washington do think there is stuff going on out there. there isn't much more optimistic message and these are the folks that are doing things, happening all across the country. i don't want to be pollyannaish about the challenges. you're exactly right you've got supersized challenges, things we couldn't have predicted, but it's going to come from the bottom. we are just not seeing that, it's not going to be a top and bottom thing, not be done by passing a piece of legislation on the federal level but it will come from the bottom up. once we start to see all the action going on the federal government will respond. we don't think the federal government should be doing anything. it's obviously things like a national fight program from one of the only industrialized countries on the planet that doesn't have one which we probably should. a perfect thing the federal government should be doing.

but at a time of severe fiscal constraint, at a time when are these massive challenges, we have to focus and prioritize and it's got to come from the bottom up. question here. >> thank you. i'm john woodward, retired government engineer. mostly overseas for about 35 years and now i'm retired. question is, one of the biggest return on investment that i see, critical infrastructure, is continuity of operations. ability to do the day-to-day things went today and to keep society moving forward. as i think about it, to cities, new york and london, very old infrastructure but very critical to the financial stability of the planet. have we taken any lessons from those cities, things to learn from lessons learned, as inefficient as they are the could be affected. that was my question. >> i would lead off and just a particularly in the case of new york following sandy, i think

the dimension of the resilience conversation obviously has just blossomed nationally and it's landed hard for us in detroit. perhaps for issues not similar to those in new york, this is the kind of world financial center so wanted to fourth. in detroit it rotated into an issue of equity, tremendous challenge to develop a truly resilient city that also has some of the greatest need for it. 42% of the population or -- are below the poverty line in detroit. you have a number of other neat you can imagine that go along with it. i won't list them off, but here you have a challenge we are just slightly disruptions can begin to actually undermine a lot of existing systems, many of them are informal in detroit and ultimately you can have loss of life. you can have significant challenges. what we are trying to see is the

ways in which there's a comment earlier about bundling infrastructure, how can we as we move forward whether it's soft or hard systems, gray, green, whatever, how can we bring these things together so sickly so those investments are being made to launch new businesses at the same time -- this singly, so that everything that happens along the way developed a much stronger network to keep things going in a time of challenge knowing that their other, some folks who will never have the means to escape something like that. >> i just want to say quickly on learning from new york or london, transferability of lessons i think you're a great example of being able to translate it within context and having leadership to do it in a really astute and sensitive way that reflects the community assets. i think that is the imperative. it's really interesting to always be looking for what is

the common challenges is but in the solution building that are very contextual. >> just to give a very specific example. rob, you know this well from the rockefeller foundation after hurricane sandy working with governor cuomo to plan for the next 100 years. nys 2100 process. win another was an addict note that i loved and it was from someone at a cable company who was describing to the cable companies knew where the power was out faster than the power companies did. because set-top boxes, when the power is interrupted, started picking up the phone and calling. it speeded up operations and restoration of power tremendously. i think when we talk about partnerships and open data it's not just public or private. it's private and private in some cases because industries live in silos. we need to be able to find those opportunity great a continuity of operations across sectors. when it's private industry that really is underpinning most of the need and the resource.

>> we've just barely started scratch the surface. i'm such a terrible moderator. i want to give this a conversation going. i know we have to move on. again i think we've asked more questions or we have raised questions or we embrace more question that we've answered here which is not a bad thing. we will keep the conversation going, but please join me in thanking our great panelists. [applause] >> and then while they're getting off a state i just want introduced in our final speaker for the morning who is going to be greg kelly, the global chief operating officer at parsons brinckerhoff, a position he is held there since 2012 but as you may know tv is a multinational infrastructure from with approximate 14,000 employees. what you may not know how this all fits into this conversation, about future and innovation and all that, so what we think the firm is doing, deploy new

technology, importing lessons, connecting different areas of infrastructure, the things we had here on this panel. is exactly the right way to close out this week. so with that please join me in welcoming greg kelly. [applause] >> good morning. well, as rob mentioned this is the closing session and i think i just want to take a moment to acknowledge all the individuals and organizations that are hosted at brookings for putting together a terrific week. i think the speakers we just heard from this morning from congressman delay to our last panel really underscore the importance of this topic. let's give them a quick round of applause. [applause] >> when i first spoke with rob and patrick and john and myself talked about this opportunity to come and speak at brookings at the conclusion of infrastructure week, it was probably the easiest decision i had to make in a long time. to talk about infrastructure consulting we at parsons

brinckerhoff of been doing for close to 130 years, we take great pride -- pride in reaching regions across globe into coming to try to advance the conversation about that and offer perspective was just a great opportunity to so thank you for the invite. as you heard, we plan and design infrastructure across the goal. in the past year i personally spent time in canada, the uk, throughout europe, asia, the middle east, australia, new zealand, in major cities across the globe and could use that perspective to talk about what we do well here and perhaps where some of the differences are in the u.s. i'm going to frame that conversation around three key themes -- four key things. the first is technology. the second is generational attitudes. the '30s delivery and financing, and fourth him to bring it back to the role of government.

first is something we all face, changing technology. traditionally our business, infrastructure, has not been a hotbed for technological change. the romans invented concrete after all which is only slightly a late comer compared to the we'll. but today new technologies are becoming more and more common in our business. advanced pitchers, affordable solar power and electric vehicles, just a few of the innovations that have the potential to change how we do business. but two new technologies stand above the rest in the magnitude of the potential effects. one is already with us, and the other is not too distant horizon. they will not change how we build infrastructure so much as how we use it. the smartphone and the autonomous vehicle. each by itself is revolutionary

and the interaction of the two could be a game changer. today the smartphone is ubiquitous in much of the world. i'm fairly certain every person in this room has at least one smartphone on them right now. this little device has already changing how we're using infrastructure. we are just -- we adjust our driving routes for real-time traffic information to we purchased a rail ticket on her smartphone. we pay for parking, we summon a taxi. all on the fly. we could accomplish all of these things before, but the sheer ease -- just ask anyone in the taxi business. but more than this, the smartphone puts the world in your hand. and those now spare bits of time, which were always inefficient, we have time to be efficient whether we waiting for an elevator or riding the metro. we can use those bits of time in

new ways. one of the benefits of transit has always been the chance to do something productive with that time spent commuting. but the quality of the time has always been low, hasn't it? the smartphone has changed how people use this time. some argue it's one factor, diamond trimmed, driving towards transit. consider this. total vehicle miles traveled in the united states peaked in 2007, a year known for something else, the introduction of the iphone. you be the judge. transit is not yet a viable choice for many americans. so let's fast-forward to the to rise and i just referenced, a time when we were on the cusp of opening up roads to at a time of vehicles. this technology, take the most

unproductive power of the day, our commute, and make it an hour to read e-mail, watch a movie, to shopping, all on your smartphone. i think you'll agree, society will have a tough time saying no to that. technology is not the only thing changing. so our attitudes. we've all heard the evidence, fewer young people are getting drivers licenses. vmt stack. coolers -- cities are cool again. transit is growing. this wave has been building and shows no signs of slowing down. these changes are happening overseas as well. in germany one half of the men under 25 used to own a car. now it's less than one-third. rates a drive for people in their 20s have fallen in japan, uk, france and australia. car sharing is bigger in europe and it is here in the u.s. leading the way of the so-called millennials who were also major

force what people are calling a sharing economy. which is everything from zipcar to airbnb the bike sharing. these services turned on utilize assets from a spare bedroom to a riderless bike to a marketable commodity. who knew? here is what changing technology and changing attitudes may converge. what major capital investment that's unused 90% of the time? the car of course you're it's not hard to imagine transportation future that looks rather different than today. using an app on my iphone, i summit and autonomous vehicle to take me to my next meeting. might be my car, might be someone else's. but it happens to be closed by. once it drops me off it parks itself or maybe picks up another passenger. this maybe 15 years off but i bet the people at hoover already

thinking about it. the consequences for our industry are not yet clear. when everyone has their own chauffeur, with 10 people to move further from the city, or will people deemphasize car ownership in favor of an on-demand model? will this lead to a lifestyle choices that go with lower rates of car ownership like living in walkable neighborhoods? if so, the infrastructure we invest in will need to change. but before we get to that, it's important to recognize the many things will not change. our existing stock of infrastructure will always need to be maintained. from interstate highways to water systems to power grids, to the communications links. we have fallen behind on this score. and technology is not going to

save us. to my knowledge, and i'm in this business there is no app out there to fix a bridge. but the new infrastructure we've built in the 21st century may, in fact, look different from what we build an the 20th century. the next wave of investments is to focus on supporting adventure, more urban pattern of living. not so many new highways and more public transit, fewer single-family homes and more vertical construction. water and power infrastructure moscow inward and upward instead of outward. sustainability will be a nonnegotiable objective. no matter what we build, it will have to handle a world of higher sea levels and more powerful storms. it's interesting, other countries look at our decentralized system of infrastructure planning and wonder how can it ever work. it has its challenges, but it also has its strengths.

we heard some of that this morning. different places can try different things. each city is its own little petri dish of extreme edition. as one place experiments, the other places look and learn. as an example, we never adopted a national policy on light rail. but a few cities tried it and other cities liked what they saw. bike sharing work here in washington, d.c., and other cities are following suit. so as rob was talking about earlier, how we finance and deliver infrastructure of the future? innovative things are happening. we're all encouraged by what congressman delaney and had to say but they're mostly happening someplace else. a generation ago it was not a big gap and how infrastructure was finance, build an operator here in the u.s. versus other industrialized nations. that was a quite simple model. government collected taxes.

private firms bid and design and build the next project and the government was the operator. pretty standard. in the u.s. is still mostly how it's done, except of course we are doing fewer projects every year. i will editorialize for a moment. what once existed at all levels of government in terms of -- doesn't exist anymore in both parties. to support a reasonable level of infrastructure, investmeninvestmen t has broken down without anything to replace it. these consequences are serious. i know everybody here understands that and they are getting worse every year. i'm not going to belabor the point. i've heard all too many times before. but financing infrastructure truly with taxes has also been on the decline in other countries. but they been willing to build a new financing system in its place. we have yet to adopt that. user financing on polls or fares

or raised is seen not only as acceptable but preferable from mexico to china to europe to australia. most new high speed roadways are built as toll roads. it is the new normal. user financing has the advantages, and goes beyond just raising money. it helps allocate resources in a rational way. it serves a real demand, the market will find it. if, however, the market is not interested, maybe that tells us something about the project. look at the decline or retrenchment in the toll roads recently. we all face congestion, but that's different from how much we are willing to pay to avoid it. user financing should be encouraged but it's not a panacea, in particular it's not well-suited for the task of restoring and maintaining the infrastructure we already have.

this bread and butter work caused many tens of billions annually, and it cannot realistically be financed with tolls. broad-based funding like we have with the gas tax and we for this throughout the week, is and always will be a necessity. it remains the big range in our toolbox. whether we're talking building new facilities or repairing old ones, new methods of project delivery can make a big difference. unfortunately, we still lag a bit behind in this country. dominant practice here is what we call design bid build. where one team decides a project, a different one build to the project sponsors operate it at the end of the day. we talked earlier about silas. this is a perfect case for traditional methods in this country are very much title driven. but what is happening is a move towards design build, an incredible step where you marry a contractor and a designer and to develop a project in concert.

you eliminate some of the friction caused and that frictional time that occurs in developing it in silos. that improves schedule, costs and the risk to society. beyond design build another approach that goes further and deliver innovation is about public-private partnerships and again referred a bit about that throughout the week. here's where one theme can do everything from raising the financing to planning and design it and getting it to permit, building and operating for a period of time. government's role in this case it to set standards for performance and then pays over time as people use the facility. but let's be honest. some agencies, some governments throughout the country are still skeptical of these new practices. they're afraid to give up control. i believe this is not warranted. but it is true that these methods call upon governments to

exercise control but in a new way. under the old system the project sponsor can take every design choice, however small, very hands on, a lot of time through the delivery process. with a new methods the project sponsor still retains control so that is expressed through performance standards with the private sector like to figure out all the details. this allows government to focus its energy on true matters of public policy. setting objectives, establishing a budget, demanding performance and enforcing rules that get the most out of the competitive marketplace. once these decisions are made, the delivery process becomes less and inherently governmental and more amenable to efficiency driven by the private sector. i firmly believe that if our

public agencies could adopt a contracting practices that we have increasing as commonplace overseas from london to australia and elsewhere, we could get more infrastructure built for our money here at home. let me conclude by a couple of thoughts. by themselves, these reforms will not solve our infrastructure deficit. but they can give us more bang for the buck, perhaps this could lead to greater public

we will have that for you live on c-span2. before the start of the congressional internet caucusto some background onn thejour isd what it means for consumers for today's washington journal.sed s

>> host: what did the fcc vote on yesterday?rt date uary asked hejust how is for how thed address what the appeals court did in january. they have said that the fcc dids have some authority to address the management under a section of the federal law that says that the fcc should try to encourage the advanced capability but that it had done it in a way that was in a and proper on the common carrier regulation on the broadband access providers forcing them to essentially offer service to anyone who wanted it under the same terms and conditions into the court said that they have to allow them to be more flexible than that. the court did not hold one of the rules the commission had adopted in 2010 which was a transparency requirement of the providers have to tell their

customers what they are doing by the way of management that might cause them to be higher or low lower. there was a no talking rule and one was an antidiscrimination rule and they are saying anyone that has an opinion should tell us whether we are headed in the right direction or not they would adopt the same language the court struck down but they would do it with a different justification, and relying on some language of the court order that said if the fcc had done this with the idea that the providers have to provide a non- one level to say that walking that would have been okay and then for the other paper with a

commercial reasonableness standard which created a lot of controversy because it is perceived as being far too weak and liable to allow providers to charge companies like netflix into the companies that provided the services over the internet but it would allow the access providers to charge picking winners and losers. >> host: a couple of months ago the chair throughout the idea we are going to have essentially a fast lane. is that a fair description? >> guest: in an >> guest: and anyway he didn't think that would be a fair description.

>> host: is that a fair description and i'm just going to show here is the headline in the "washington post" this morning advance i advances the n allowing the sale of the web speed. >> guest: that is a simplification of what they did and it's held a lot of the advocates for people who want a very strong describing it that way. they were not adamant this is what they were proposing. there was no language over what they adopted yesterday that says fast lane and slow lane the provider could offer different kinds of access arrangements to different edge providers but the differentiation between what they offer the companies would

have to be commercially reasonable and also separately have to pass this standard with the minimum level of access. the chairman said yesterday very end directly what he is proposing would not allow the service that you are already paying for. if you are paying for five megabits downstream it's not allowed to say we don't like this because people are not going to get the five megabits when they try to send stuff to you but somebody that is paying will get the five. i have had hands-on experience with the importance of network openness and i will not allow the national aspect of an

opinion internet to be compromised. i understand this issue in my bones. i've got scars from when my companies were denied access. the consideration that we are beginning today isn't about whether the internet must be open, but about how and when we would have rules in place to ensure. >> guest: he sounds pretty and static. i suppose one could take him at his word and read things into

the proposal but it does seem to me that a lot of the coverage is based on the interpretation that has been strongly worded criticism from the party that advocates for stronger approach which would be to classify broadband internet access providers. of course you remember you can't treat them as common carriers over a period of time through mid-2005 for all of the various technologies that provide broadband access services meaning what they are doing is delivering information content over this transmission that is so intrinsically tied with the information that they cannot be separated out and what the

proponents of the strong net neutrality want is to sort of say yes we can separate them in the transmission piece. it's a telecommunication service that would allow them to impose what they had because they would be common carriers and there would be nothing wrong with th that. anand asin this various period e last 15 years they were not telecom services and now it does. >> host: whe lynn stanton is the editor with telecommunications. we are talking about what the fcc did yesterday with regards to net neutrality. it gets confusing that if you have been following this issue, you understand what it's about. i did 53881 for republicans and

585-3882 for independence. you can contact us over social media as well. democrats, republicans and independents all seem to be against what they did yesterday. one set of people pertaining to be the republicans and also some extent the network providers themselves although they are very circumspect in the language they are talking about. the object to the idea of doing anything in this area at all whereas democrats in congress have taken the approach. buthe high-ranking ones of the committee of oversight and even where there is a bit of bubbling

that has come down more on the side of taking a very strong approach so they could be very well described as the approach into the commissioner that is a republican had a colorful way of describing to texan politician the only thing in the middle of the road is the yellow line. >> public advocacy groups are against the proposal as well even though as the chair man said this would guarantee that neutrality. >> guest: public advocacy is one that would advocate for consumer rights or democracy or the media comment into groups

because they want the title of the classification and the common carrier approach which would allow the fcc a much greater scope to regulate the companies then going through this basing it on the mandate to encourage the deployment. >> if it were classified as a common carrier what could have been? >> guest: when they talk about doing that of course we would forbear from enforcing a love of the common carrier regulation that did apply, presumably things like keeping very detailed accounting to justify their rates because they don't seem to be talking about any

kind of stringent regulations where they would bring the cases away. presumably it was trying to get to the facts of the common carrier provisions require no unreasonable or unfair discrimination by a carrier. they have to offer the same service to everyone. they would have to offer similar kind of offerings into the reason the common carriage to offer what are called contract to say there is a volume discount. a million minutes a month that

body and carryiniam carrying ons for someone bringing a thousand of traffic. >> host: what are the regulations if you and i have the same access to the internet on netflix or google or amazon? >> we wouldn't even under the rules that they are proposing. there has been criticism that the transparency rule is a weak transparency rule that isn't provided in customers with enough information to really understand what the network operator is doing, so in this proposed group it's been adopted yesterday.

they were enhancing the transparency rule making it stronger in different contexts. all they have to do is put it on a website somewhere where it's not on the website, go and look at it so they are looking at other ways whether it's information to provide to you and me that would be different than the information provided to netflix or google but the access they have is different they are paying their own providers for the internet than you and i probably need. we are not running a multimillion dollar service out of my home, so there are different levels of access. but the idea that you have to be able to go anywhere on the internet as you want, the court's decision viewed i in the

service the management people offer as also applying to the reason they have no commercial -- even if they don't have any money from google or netflix, verizon or at&t, the court viewed it as though they are providing the servic a service e is a relationship between the term from the netflix standpoint to the determining service provider and netflix. >> telecommunications reports. we are talking about open interest rules and the fcc. dorothy you are first up, please go ahead. >> first i watched the hearings and i found it extremely amazing and the fact that while both sides delivered some interesting comment, what i found reflective of the issue [inaudible]

and are to bring up valid issues that are being denied access to the american public that can be in fact part of their health costs eat your well-being in knowing what point are being taken off the table for public consideration. and the five protesters

asked you to and not vote for the proposed rules, and they were escorted out i security. they were not allowed to go to the mic or speak up. fcc did not think that was what the meeting was for. they are required by law to meet once a month and go over major cisions. decision there is an opportunity at the fcc now for the purpose of yesterday's vote was to say this is what we are thinking of doing now we want the public to tell us what they think and since february when the chair man said this is what he was asking the chair man to do to draw a notice that would propose these rules there's been an opportunity for the public to comment.

there's thousands of inputs from thinput fromthe public that youo online and see and immediately they made a rather unusual approach actually that immediately opened up a number of files to comment on the proposals. it's okay now for four months for anyone interested should definitely go online and tell them what they think. >> host: and what is this actual report that you have? have?guest co. this is the notice of the proposed rulemaking. the three commissioners who are you democrats and that i don't think we should be doing this. we should take more time to think about what people have been telling us. but she did vote to do this. >> host: why did she vote for

it? the last couple of weeks she has been saying -- >> guest: presumably she realized at some point you need to start a process by which you can act on what you're hearing and most likely she got changes in the wording that came out on monday. one hears things that puts more focus on the possibility of the title to classification with the advocates would like to see older the best proposal from yesterday still proposes and leans towards the idea of using section 706.

i think it's accessible for the general public perhaps not from a background of that kind of this section is th this and tha. >> host: there's so much emotion regarding this issue. >> guest: idea made people see the internet as very important and functional to their lives. your ability to perfor perform s that discuss politics like this most people don't do that anymore they go online and find grassroots or petitions and down the road if carriers are able to make decisions about how they

are offering the service rather than being required to offer the pipe that you're paying for the view into basically the underpinning view of this making sure there is a purpose for the political discourse and the commercial endeavors and the company that might want to charge google or netflix. he made to the regulation for the broadband providers they may be discouraged from investing in the broad pipes in the facility is building out in the areas. so they are trying to balance

those ideas. >> caller: i agree the common carrier status needs to be on the broadband number one we need more transparency because we pay anywhere from three to four or five times as much as the poorest countries in europe for internet speeds that are a third order quarter of what they are getting. in addition in many places there are one or two providers that are giving local monopolies so that cannot be handled however with the congress could do is restrict those who provide content like comcast or time

warner because there is a conflict of interest they want their services to be sold whereas if other companies say netflix for example have an interest in restricting other personal providers. they restrict you from running servers, political speech or family information, all kinds of stuff and they don't allow you to do that. so there are some very big issues and we need to separate those with a vested interest in selling the content from providing the internet's pipes. and that is primarily my point is that we are letting them down and frankly i'm sick of it.

>> guest: he has a number of good points. the actual reasons why the carriers might actually have incentives to restrict it doesn't apply to all providers but obviously they have some kind of video or cable service could view netflix as a competitor although if you go to the cable industry increasingly you would hear them talk about selfless broadband providers and the profit is increasingly coming from that side but there is that incentives and other services they might want to offer