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. 

In the forthcoming book Infrastructure Economics and Policy: International Perspectives (Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 2021), edited by José Gómez-Ibáñez and Zhi Liu, some 20 international authors offer perspectives that can help us evaluate the infrastructure investment proposals currently being considered in Washington.

Here are the top five takeaways to consider in any infrastructure investment package, based on extensive research into the ingredients for success:

Think Long-Term Growth, Not Quick Stimulus

Infrastructure investment typically increases a country’s GDP, but contrary to the conventional wisdom, it’s not an effective way to provide a quick economic stimulus to cut short a recession. The pipeline of so-called “shovel ready” projects is usually relatively short, and it takes many years to secure the permissions and funding necessary to begin construction on a new project, by which time the recession is typically over. Moreover, the image of infrastructure providing opportunities for unskilled labor is also misleading. Modern construction projects often involve sophisticated equipment and require extensive training; they do not offer pathways to quick employment for large numbers of unemployed service-sector workers.

Shovel-Worthy Matters, Not Shovel-Ready

The returns on investment depend importantly on the quality of specific projects being funded. Economists have developed and refined methods for estimating the value individuals place on the various benefits and costs of a project. The resulting difference between the benefits and costs, or the net benefit, can be interpreted as the measure of how much society will gain or lose from implementing the project. Most federal infrastructure agencies are required to prepare benefit-cost analyses of the major projects or policies they are considering and of the relevant alternatives to those projects. However, the U.S. Congress seldom, if ever, requires the agencies to adopt the alternative with the highest net benefits because of political considerations, including the concern that benefit-cost analysis might not adequately reflect goals of fairness and equity. While cost-benefit analyses are not perfect, they are one of the best tools available for evaluating infrastructure proposals. Agencies should beware of departing significantly from the alternative with the highest net benefit without good reason.

Beware of Over-Confidence and Over-Optimism

One of the drawbacks of cost-benefit analyses is that they typically assume that the forecasts of the project’s usage, costs, and other dimensions of performance are accurate, when in fact they are biased. A landmark analysis of some 2,000 infrastructure projects found that actual costs were significantly higher than forecast, while usage was significantly lower, as Bent Flyvbjerg and Dirk W. Bester explore in a chapter of the forthcoming book. This pattern might arise if the agency executing the projects bore little liability for cost overruns and demand shortfalls. Such arrangements are rare, however; instead, the authors blame several well-known behavioral limitations, particularly overconfidence bias and optimism bias. Fighting against these biases is difficult because they are so deeply ingrained in human nature. Still, some measures suggested by the authors are worth considering, such as holding the forecasters legally accountable or using independent audits.

Take Equity Seriously

The benefits and costs of infrastructure projects are often distributed inequitably. On the one hand, major infrastructure facilities such as highways and power plants are often built in locations where the negative impacts are felt disproportionately by low-income residents and people of color. On the other hand, the lack of access to basic infrastructure, particularly in the developing world, impairs quality of life and contributes to inequality. Studies from the developing world show that access to an all-weather road or to the regional electricity grid can stimulate economic activity, narrow the gap between rural and urban incomes, and reduce the economic disparities between villages. In the United States, the Rural Electrification Administration, created during the Great Depression and now part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service, is an example of a successful investment that raised living standards for many. The counterpart today is broadband internet, once considered something of a luxury but increasingly necessary to support electronic banking, remote learning, telemedicine, and other valued services in urban and rural areas alike.

Consider Governance Challenges

A final takeaway is to consider how a major investment program might require changes in how the infrastructure system is governed, including the roles of the public and private sectors but especially those of the national and state or local governments. State and local governments have historically been deeply involved in regulating both private and government-owned infrastructure for several reasons: The initial motivation was to protect against monopoly in sectors such as electricity. In addition, infrastructure’s importance to everyday life makes access an important concern for local government. Finally, the adverse impacts of facilities on their surroundings make siting controversial, leading state and local governments to intervene in order to manage competing interests. However, the advent of a major new infrastructure program—particularly one focused on decarbonizing the energy system to reduce climate change—will increase the national government’s role. First, national government is almost uniquely positioned to invest in future technologies for which there is not yet a sufficient market to fuel innovation, and to drive responses to large-scale problems that require collective action. In addition, decarbonization will likely require major new investment in renewable generation and longer transmission lines crossing more state borders, shifting disputes about siting new facilities to the national level. Further, national government will face pressure to mitigate the economic impact of its climate change policies—for example, compensating owners of fossil fuel plants and other assets that lose their value. These governance challenges may prove even more difficult than the financial challenges that current debates focus on.

In sum, the success of any infrastructure plan ultimately depends on the type and quality of the projects selected. The quality of the projects selected will depend on the quality of the supporting benefit-cost analyses, and on the ability of leaders to think strategically for the long run, commit to equitable outcomes, and sensibly balance national and local oversight.

Image: iStock.com/lavin photography

At some point in the last few years, it was like a switch flipped: it became clear that the electric vehicle technology revolution is real and could have significant planning and land use impacts. For the last decade or so, the spotlight has often focused on how this cleaner energy alternative could power new ridesharing and autonomous vehicle schemes, or micro-mobility innovations such as electric bikes or scooters. But some of the most illuminating electric vehicle experiments currently underway involve mass transit, including trains, trolley systems, and that most humble vehicle category, the city bus.

While China is by far the global leader in building and using electric mass transit due to its state industrial policy and carbon reduction plan, Latin American cities are emerging as significant players in this growing market. By one estimate, more than 2,000 e-buses were operating in at least 10 countries across Latin America by the end of 2020. That number is expected to rise: one analysis predicts that by 2025 the region will add more than 5,000 electric buses a year.

The push for electric buses is motivated by the urgent need to reduce the diesel emissions that cause air pollution and contribute to climate change. Widespread adoption is likely to have a significant impact, given that per capita public transit ridership is reportedly higher in Latin America than in any other region of the world.

A recent report from the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a global development organization that is part of the World Bank Group, and C40 Cities, a climate action coalition, pointed to two notable examples of cities investing heavily in electric buses. Santiago, Chile’s capital city, has a fleet of more than 700 e-buses and growing, the largest outside of China. (By comparison, there were about 650 e-buses in the entire United States in 2020, although political momentum seems to be building for an investment in the sector.) Santiago is aiming for a zero-emission fleet by 2035. In Colombia, Bogotá has undertaken an ambitious effort to put more than 1,000 e-buses into service, tied to Colombia’s larger effort to cut carbon emissions 20 percent by 2030.

Both cities are using innovative public-private funding arrangements. As the IFC/C40 report points out, the majority of municipal transit systems are owned either by a public agency or by a private operator with a municipal concession of some sort. But newer arrangements “unbundle” ownership and operation—essentially using the kind of leasing strategies familiar in, say, commercial airlines (where one set of companies makes planes, and a different set leases and operates them). “Asset owners own, and operators operate,” as the report put it. 

In Bogotá, for instance, the municipal transportation entity, Transmilenio, contracted with Celsia Move, an energy-focused subsidiary of multinational conglomerate Grupo Argus, to deliver the bus fleet. In turn, Celsia Move made a 15-year agreement with Grupo Express, a separate company, to operate and maintain that fleet. As John G. Graham, a principal industry specialist in the IFC’s global transport group, explains, this unbundling makes each entity more attractive to different sets of potential investors. An owner entity can expect fixed payments, and its assets can be collateralized; an operator takes much less capital risk.

Electric buses and trains entail a much steeper up-front investment than their fossil fuel rivals—double the cost or more, by some estimates. But these recent public–private partnerships have reportedly attracted commitments from more than 15 investors and manufacturers, raising approximately $1 billion to juice the deployment of 3,000 more e-buses in various cities. International financing in support of e-bus and other green projects across Latin America has come from heavyweights like the InterAmerican Development Bank and the Partnering for Green Growth and the Global Goals 2030 initiative (P4G), whose initial funding came from the government of Denmark.

As Graham of the IFC points out, the underlying economics are also evolving. An electric bus can be cheaper to maintain over time, meaning that as battery technology improvements lower that up-front expense, the so-called “total cost of ownership” over a vehicle’s lifetime should soon approach parity with internal combustion engine alternatives. Still, finding sustainable sources of support will be critical, given that financing major transportation projects—including electrification upgrades—is invariably a challenge. 

One option could be land-based financing. In Costa Rica, for example, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy has worked with policy makers to explore land-based finance options to help offset the $1.5 billion cost of an expansion and electrification of a major train line serving the capital, San José. Throughout Latin America, notes Martim Smolka, a Lincoln Institute senior fellow and director of its Program on Latin America and the Caribbean, land value capture strategies have been used to help fund major projects, such as redeveloping former factory and industrial zones. The value capture model ensures that a portion of the increase in land values that results from municipal actions is returned to the municipality to help offset the costs for other projects, such as improving local infrastructure.

“Transportation does help structure the value of land,” Smolka says, but capturing that value can be trickier than with a more straightforward redevelopment project, given the scale of most transit projects. One effective approach, he notes, is to increase density around particularly busy transit stops, encouraging fresh development but requiring developers who benefit from rezoning to in effect pay for the opportunity. He adds that an economic impact study commissioned by Costa Rica suggested the expansion of the electric train will have a positive effect on land values, and the project dovetails with a pledge to reach carbon-neutral status by 2050.

Electric transit is still a sliver of all mass transit in Latin America, and the pandemic created new challenges. But the Latin American market may be particularly suited to capitalize on and expand this trend. Smolka observes that the region is known for embracing transit innovation, from electric trams in the 1950s to today’s Bus Rapid Transit, propane taxis, and cable car lines that serve dense, hilly informal settlements. With relatively sophisticated transit authorities and a track record of financing major projects, “they are among the best transit systems in the developing market,” says Graham.

Among other things, that means lots of data on existing routes that can support the efficient deployment of new electric buses. It’s much harder, Graham says, to “leapfrog” an electric system into a municipality with little transit track record than it is to phase the technology into an existing setup. Latin America also has an increasingly strong trade relationship with China, which manufactures an estimated 98 percent of the world’s total e-bus fleet. All of this may be putting Latin America in a leadership lane for a transition that, in time, will happen globally. As Graham says: “Electrification is coming.”

Rob Walker is a journalist covering design, technology, and other subjects. He is the author of The Art of Noticing. His newsletter is at robwalker.substack.com.

Image: Electric buses at a charging station in Santiago, Chile. The city has a fleet of more than 700 e-buses and growing. Credit: Courtesy of C40 Knowledge Hub.

Related Content

Building Value: In Brazil, Land Value Capture Supports the Needs of the Community

Mass Movements, Mixed Results: Latin American Cities Lead the Way on Urban Transit—But Who Benefits?

Phoenix es la quinta ciudad más grande y la metrópolis con mayor índice de crecimiento de los Estados Unidos. Kate Gallego es la segunda alcaldesa mujer electa en la historia de Phoenix; y, con sus 39 años, es la alcaldesa de una ciudad importante más joven del país. Según ella, orientar este crecimiento implica priorizar la diversidad económica, las inversiones en infraestructura y la sustentabilidad. Cuando estaba en el ayuntamiento de Phoenix, dirigió la campaña para aprobar un plan de transporte en toda la ciudad que se prolonga hasta 2050. Cuando este se aprobó, en 2015, fue el acuerdo más grande del país de un gobierno local sobre infraestructura de transporte. Antes de dedicarse a la política, Gallego trabajó en desarrollo económico para Salt River Project, un servicio público de agua y electricidad sin fines de lucro que atiende a más de dos millones de personas en el centro de Arizona. Poco después de haber sido electa por segunda vez, la alcaldesa Gallego habló con Anthony Flint, nuestro miembro sénior. Fue la primera de una serie de entrevistas por el 75.º aniversario con alcaldes de ciudades que tienen una importancia especial para el Instituto Lincoln. A continuación, se presenta la transcripción editada de la conversación.

Anthony Flint: La felicito por la reelección. ¿Cuáles cree que son los temas que más motivaron al electorado en estos tiempos turbulentos?

Kate Gallego: El electorado buscaba candidatos que pudieran liderar en función de datos reales y tomar decisiones basadas en la ciencia. Yo llego a este puesto con un historial en desarrollo económico y un título de grado en medioambiente. El profesor de química nos decía que cuantos más cursos de química hiciéramos, más lejos estaríamos de avanzar en política electoral. Pero creo que el 2020 puede haber sido un año distinto: la ciencia fue importante para el electorado . . . El electorado de Arizona quería dirigentes que se tomaran la COVID-19 en serio, al igual que otros desafíos como el cambio climático y la recuperación económica.

Particularmente para el sector más joven, el cambio climático era un asunto muy importante. Me postulé cuando la comunidad sufría el verano más caluroso que se hubiera registrado. Puede que en algunas comunidades el cambio climático sea un tema del futuro, pero en Phoenix es un problema al que nos enfrentamos ahora. Las distintas generaciones lo describen de distintas formas. Mi papá me dice: si puedes hacer algo para aliviar el calor que sentimos durante el verano aquí, seguro saldrás reelecta. Es otra visión, pero creo que el resultado es el mismo.

AF: ¿Cómo afectó la pandemia a las labores de planeamiento urbano? ¿Surgieron oportunidades imprevistas?

KG: La pandemia realmente cambió el modo en que la gente interactúa con su comunidad. Aumentaron los paseos en bicicleta y a pie. Lo que la gente nos dice es que antes no se daba cuenta de cuánto disfrutaba esa forma de moverse en la comunidad, y pretende mantener algunos de esos cambios de conducta . . . Estamos evaluando cómo podemos crear más espacios públicos. ¿Podemos expandir la gastronomía al aire libre y permitir a la gente interactuar más entre sí?

El Dr. Anthony Fauci nos dijo que cuanto más tiempo pasemos al aire libre mejor combatiremos la COVID-19. Pero hay otros beneficios muy buenos. Soy la alcaldesa de la ciudad con mayor superficie de parques en todo el país, y este fue un año récord en que se disfrutaron esos parques . . . Puedes estar en el medio de Phoenix haciendo senderismo, y hay días en los que no ves a nadie más. Este año, esos servicios y el enfoque en la planificación en función de los parques mejoraron mucho.

Además, seguimos invirtiendo en el sistema de transporte. Decidimos acelerar la inversión en transporte; esa decisión se debatió mucho, y creo que nos permitirá avanzar hacia una forma más urbana. En realidad, notamos un aumento en la demanda por vivir en la ciudad. En el centro tenemos más grúas que nunca, y a menudo vemos solicitudes para edificios más altos que los que hemos visto hasta ahora. Comprendo que se está dando un diálogo intenso a nivel nacional acerca de si la gente querrá estar en un entorno suburbano, pero hoy en el centro de nuestra ciudad el mercado apunta hacia otro lado.

La COVID-19 también nos hizo observar algunos desafíos clave de nuestra comunidad, como viviendas asequibles, la brecha digital y la seguridad alimentaria, y también hicimos inversiones importantes en esos sentidos.

AF: Quizás mucha gente piense que Phoenix tiene mucho espacio para viviendas unifamiliares, que una casa con un patiecito y una entrada para automóviles es relativamente asequible. Sin embargo, la ciudad tiene un problema importante de sinhogarismo. ¿Cómo se llegó a eso?

KG: Phoenix compite por la mano de obra con ciudades como San Francisco y San Diego, y otras con costos de vivienda mucho más elevados que los nuestros. Pero las viviendas asequibles han sido un verdadero desafío para nuestra comunidad. Phoenix presentó el mayor índice de crecimiento del país. Si bien los ingresos aumentaron bastante, no se actualizaron a la par de los grandes aumentos en costos hipotecarios y de alquiler que sufrió la comunidad. Es bueno que la gente esté entusiasmada con nuestra ciudad y quiera ser parte de ella, pero ha sido muy difícil para el mercado inmobiliario.

El concejo acaba de aprobar un plan de viviendas asequibles que incluye un objetivo de crear o conservar 50.000 unidades durante la próxima década. Estamos analizando varias políticas como herramientas, y, si queremos obtener las unidades necesarias, las viviendas multifamiliares tendrán que conformar una gran parte de la solución. Es posible que esto también nos acerque a una forma de desarrollo más urbana.

AF: Quienes se opusieron a la reciente expansión del metro ligero argumentaron que sería demasiado costosa, pero también parecía haber cierta respuesta cultural negativa hacia ese tipo de urbanización. ¿Qué pasó con eso?

KG: En repetidas ocasiones, el electorado votó a favor del sistema de metro ligero. La última vez fue una propuesta de plebiscito [para prohibir el metro ligero] en 2019, poco después de que fui electa. Esto fracasó en todos los distritos del concejo: fracasó en el distrito más demócrata y también en el más republicano de la ciudad. El electorado transmitió un mensaje rotundo: desea esa forma de desarrollo más urbana y la oportunidad que trae el sistema de metro ligero. Hubo inversiones importantes en recursos de atención médica y viviendas asequibles junto al metro ligero. Además, algunos distritos escolares pueden invertir más en aulas y salarios docentes porque no deben pagar el transporte de tantos estudiantes. Fue muy gratificante ver el impacto del metro ligero en la ciudad, cuando las empresas vienen a nuestra comunidad. Suelen pedir ubicaciones junto al metro ligero porque saben que es un servicio que el personal valora. Entonces lo considero un éxito, pero sé que seguiremos hablando sobre cómo y dónde queremos crecer en Phoenix.

AF: No podemos hablar de Phoenix y Arizona sin hablar de agua. ¿En qué estado se encuentran las conversaciones sobre innovación, tecnología y conservación para administrar ese recurso?

KG: Hablando de la ambición del electorado, este aprobó un plan para que la ciudad de Phoenix establezca el objetivo de ser la ciudad desértica más sustentable. La conservación del agua siempre fue un valor aquí, y lo seguirá siendo. La ciudad ya reutiliza casi toda el agua residual en cosechas, humedales y producción energética. Desarrollamos programas sólidos para depositar y reconvertir agua, eficiencia y conservación, y muchos de ellos sirvieron como modelo para otras comunidades.

Estamos planificando a futuro. Muchas partes de la ciudad dependen del río Colorado, y ese sistema fluvial sufre sequías, y quizás se enfrente a mayores desafíos en el futuro. Entonces, intentamos planificar a futuro e invertir en infraestructura para responder a eso, pero también consideramos el ecosistema de bosques y otras soluciones para asegurarnos de que podamos seguir entregando agua y dar prioridad al problema del cambio climático. También tuvimos suerte con bonos verdes y de sustentabilidad, que la ciudad emitió hace poco. Era hora de invertir en la infraestructura, y . . . las asociaciones con The Nature Conservancy y otras organizaciones nos ayudaron a analizar cómo gestionar el agua de modo que se aproveche el ecosistema natural, ya sea por filtración de agua pluvial o la manera en que diseñamos las soluciones del pavimento. Así, hemos tenido buenas innovaciones. La comunidad incluye muchas empresas que están a la vanguardia del uso del agua, tal como se esperaría de una ciudad desértica, y espero que Phoenix se ponga al frente y ayude a otras comunidades a abordar dificultades relacionadas con el agua.

AF: Por último, si nos da el gusto: el fundador creó la Fundación Lincoln en 1946 en Phoenix, donde participaba en acciones filantrópicas locales. ¿Nos daría su opinión sobre el modo en que se entrelazan las historias de Phoenix, la familia Lincoln y esta organización?

KG: Por supuesto. La familia Lincoln tuvo un impacto inmenso en Phoenix y nuestra economía. Uno de los puntos de mayor crecimiento en lo que respecta al empleo es la atención médica, y la red HonorHealth debe su legado a John C. Lincoln. El Centro Médico John C. Lincoln invirtió y nos ayudó en muchos aspectos, desde la COVID-19 hasta todas las dificultades que tiene una ciudad que crece rápido.

Quiero destacar a un miembro en particular de la familia: Joan Lincoln, una de las primeras mujeres a cargo de una ciudad de Arizona [fue alcaldesa de Paradise Valley entre 1984 y 1986; Joan era la esposa de David C. Lincoln, director del Instituto Lincoln por mucho tiempo, y madre de Kathryn Lincoln, la directora actual]. Cuando decidí postularme como alcaldesa, ninguna de las 15 ciudades más grandes del país tenía una alcaldesa mujer; muchas ciudades importantes, como Nueva York y Los Ángeles, nunca habían tenido una. Pero en Arizona es algo común. No soy la primera alcaldesa [mujer] de Phoenix, y soy una de las muchas alcaldesas [mujeres] que hay en el valle. Cuando Joan allanó el camino, no era así. Fue una pionera increíble de verdad, y logró que fuera más posible y más común que hubiera candidatas como yo. Agradezco su liderazgo.

Anthony Flint es miembro sénior del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo y editor colaborador de Land Lines.

Fotografía: Kate Gallego. Crédito: Kate Gallego/Twitter.

Contenido relacionado

Land Matters Podcast: Reflections on a Changing Desert Southwest from Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego