The 2016 election shone a spotlight on economic anxiety in the so-called Rust Belt – the industrial heartland of America that has struggled to thrive as jobs have dwindled in the traditional manufacturing sectors. President-Elect Donald Trump has promised a major investment in infrastructure as a job-generating program. In our April survey of mayors, more than a third of respondents said the next occupant of the White House should make infrastructure the top urban issue. But could such an effort do more than create temporary hard-hat jobs? What kind of infrastructure is necessary to support a pivot to the knowledge economy and high-tech enabled jobs? POLITICO brought together mayors, former officials and experts to consider these questions.

Broadly speaking, mayors and the people who care about the health of America’s cities, feel a daily tension between fixing potholes and helping people—taking care of roads and bridges long overdue for repair or replacement and at the same time preparing their citizens and their cities to capitalize on major changes coming in the next decade or sooner. It’s a conflict that is felt acutely in midsize cities struggling to replace the single major employer and who often don’t register on the radar of federal agencies.



“We’ve invested a lot in really large cities and haven’t done a lot of investment where people are living. I think you saw that, quite frankly, in the vote this November. That lack of investment in midsize cities has, I think, come across very clearly.”

What mayors want to prevent at all costs is a continued drain of their best and brightest to the larger metro areas, often on the coasts where the venture capital concentrates—and where economies are recovering more quickly.

“How are we going to get our kids and grandkids to come back to this community? How are we going to do that? By offering them alternatives. Good paying jobs, affordable housing, and good transportation.”

In an on-the-record discussion moderated by POLITICO’s Editorial Director of Events, Luiza Savage, and What Works editor, Bill Duryea, the group discussed policy options for a 21st century infrastructure agenda for cities in transition. In order to encourage a free and frank conversation, comments were not attributed to individual participants. What follows are five priorities they identified for rethinking infrastructure in the 21st century—and how to pay for it all.


“If Trump wants to make America great again, if he wants to rebuild the infrastructure of our country, he can start sending money back into the country through infrastructure and transportation.”

1. Skills education: Rescuing ‘a lost generation’

There was broad agreement among the group that education and skills are to the knowledge economy what highways were to the age of the automobile—indispensable to long-term growth. In order to improve educational outcomes, some mid-size cities are already increasing taxes in order to provide publicly-funded pre-Kindergarten.

“How are you going to grow an economy and attract well-paying jobs, when 11 percent of local job applicants can’t pass a 9th grade test? It’s that basic.”

“Investment in the workforce is such a big deal for us. We have to transition our workforce in the next 20 years to be able to have a high school education, an Associate’s or Bachelor’s. And the real recognition that we are in a big fight for that talent and that kind of infrastructure is really key for us.”

Community colleges were seen as a potential competitive advantage in attracting industries if they can successfully provide specialized skills to the local workforce that align with the needs of high-tech manufacturing.

“You have to think about that two-thirds of our population across the country who are going through the K-12 public systems and then thinking about what they’re going to do and would like to stay in their communities, but their community doesn’t offer economic opportunity and they don’t have the proper education and training. They are a lost generation.”

“We can’t turn that around. We can’t. It’s going to happen. That’s technological advancement, so we have to anticipate, understand it, and then see where the job opportunities are, like in robotics. Somebody has to service those robots. Somebody has to reprogram those robots.”

2. High-tech solutions: ‘Invest in research,’ save the world

Research universities have also played a critical role in cities that have successfully navigated the transition from legacy industry to high-tech jobs.

“Competitive advantage is largely driven by investment in research. If you look at the history of Silicon Valley or Boston, it largely comes from post-World-War-II investments in basic research. So that is a huge infrastructure issue [and] I would put that before highways.”

“We have the innovation infrastructure to solve all of the world problems right in our region with our companies and with our research university base. Twenty of the top 100 research universities in the world are in the Great Lakes Rust Belt. That’s more than any place has— the East Coast, the West Coast and Europe.”

“It’s not just about creating the jobs. It’s about the values they animate in your community. Young people want to be part of the future. They want to be part of the change. They want to be part of building the sustainable solutions for the future. Our region has a reputation for fighting change, being the old polluters, and they want to be part of—they go to Portland not because there are jobs there, but just because they think that it has a value set that they embrace.”

3. Clean water: Big trouble underground

The lead contamination problems in Flint, Michigan put a national spotlight on water infrastructure. Many mid-western cities are facing another challenge: updating 19th Century sewers that handle both waste and storm water, participants said. A mandate from the EPA to upgrade sewers without accompanying federal funds is creating a major challenge for cities and property owners who cannot afford the costs of replacement. The costs are holding back economic development. Participants suggested that sewer repairs should be combined with street projects as part of a national infrastructure push.



“Sewers are a major issue for all Midwestern cities and the EPA is killing us with costs and regulations. If I were running the federal government, my number one thing I’d do by far is pay all these unfunded sewer mandates, which are by far the largest capital expense in many of these cities.”

“It’s a huge deterrent to businesses and residents—sewers. And it’s being funded by low income, regressive taxes.”

“The EPA’s speed at which they expect us to fix it, to bring it up to clean air and clean water standards, is terrible, because it requires these massive local tax increases—rate increases for sewers that compound the cost of living.”

The injustice is compounded local officials say by free-riding suburban residents who pay no taxes in the cities they commute to every day.



“My master plan to win the war is combine fixing the sewers and fixing the streets.”

4. Transportation: Highways aren’t the answer

Participants agreed that transportation infrastructure is key to attracting and retaining workers but emphasized the need for options beyond building highways. Transportation options are key to attracting and retaining young skilled workers who are looking to live in cities that don’t require a car, several participants said. They also emphasized the importance of regional transportation planning to connect cities and suburbs, and workers to jobs.

“Most cities need a new highway like they need a hole in the head.”

“People want to work near where they grew up, maintain familial ties. So, if there’s a transportation system that keeps you in that region, is that not a winning argument?”

i) Buses before trains

There was disagreement among participants over the value of investing in large rail projects which can be costly to build and maintain, but there was broad support for expanded bus systems.

“Cities depend on a robust public transit system. And in the Midwest, I think that’s primarily bus transit, and I think that needs to be dramatically expanded.”

“I think these speculative rail transit investments are really not going to deliver the results … I think the back bone of these highly dispersed, sprawling Midwest cities has to be bus—plain old bus service in select areas.”

“Is there an argument to be made to give us the money for the regional transportation system that is going to preserve the rural communities, and enhance the industrial manufacturing capacity, jobs creating capacity, of this city, so that people do not have to move away?”

ii) There’s no single solution

Several participants suggested that transportation infrastructure should combine public transit, bike lanes, and access to ride sharing services such as Uber and Lyft.

“How we do new mobility? How we do smart systems for multi-modal transportation in our cities, where there’s buses, there’s cars, there’s Ubers, there’s shared services, there’s rapid rail, there’s transit. That’s where the world is going.”

“So it’s a mix of fixing up 50 and 60-year-old transit systems like they have in Chicago, like we have here [in Washington, DC]. Fixing up roads and bridges, but adding to those alternative forms of transportation. Bus rapid transit, which means you buy new buses. Then you have Uber come in. Then you have Lyft come in. And then have a whole panoply of transportation for young people that don’t want to own a car. You put in walking and biking paths.”

“Maybe it’s cheaper for all of us to get subsidized for Uber cars rather than have buses.”

iii) Don’t forget regional airports

A national infrastructure effort should also improve airports in mid-sized cities, where they can play an important role in attracting investment.

“When you’re trying to go to smaller communities in smaller regions, the airports are in bad shape.”

5. The Bones: Protect historical, natural and architectural assets

Cities in the so-called Rustbelt also deal with legacy physical infrastructure that offers major challenges but also opportunity. Large industrial sites, often posing pollution problems, need to be redeveloped; meanwhile, historical and architecturally significant housing stock can be a magnet for attracting young workers seeking affordable homes. The region also benefits from thousands of lakes and waterways that are foundation for both industry, water-related technological innovation, and quality of life.

“We have bones in our communities, of history, of architecture, that are robust. And architectural preservation and redevelopment of these historic, iconic places, that built one economy—are huge.”

“All of the cities here … had a really significant industrial past and that is part of the community, the community’s fabric. And so it’s really important to celebrate your past, your economic past so you’re not denying your history and what the community is.”

The money: How should infrastructure be financed?

Participants broadly agreed that mayors should have maximal flexibility to spend on the needs of their city. They expressed enthusiasm for the creation of a national infrastructure bank.

“An infrastructure bank where cities can borrow money—patient money, to invest—to deal with industrial sites, old and abandoned industrial sites.”

“Don’t put a lot of requirements in it; just make it straight. And part of the dilemma is the federal government, in the best of times, is difficult to deal with.”

There was also support for increased funding for the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) and the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery Act (TIGER).

“Uptick TIFIA - TIFIA is the lone program that allows cities to come innovative, creative, take some private dollars, take some state dollars—boom. Build a new bridge, fix a bridge, fix a transit system, build a walking and biking path.”

Participants also emphasized the need for creative leadership and public-private partnerships to redevelop old industrial sites.

The politics: Who’s going to get behind these ideas?

Participants expressed cautious optimism that the Trump administration could pass infrastructure spending through the Republican-controlled Congress.

“The Trump people are talking a good game about infrastructure, but Obama proposed an infrastructure bank at $50 billion and the Republican Congress said no. Now, we still have a Republican Congress; we have a Republican president, so maybe now that it’s Trump’s idea, and it’s not Obama’s idea, they’ll like it.”

“Whatever we do in America, we need a big pot of money.”

Participants predicted that Republican Congress would be unlikely to simply raise the gas tax as a way of raising funds—so infrastructure spending could be funded as part of a broader tax reform. No one has ever been voted out of office for raising the gas tax, one participant noted dryly.

“Whatever happens has to happen in tax reform. In the Ways and Means committee. This is not going to be a free-standing bill; they have to find the money. You have to create an infrastructure bank under tax reform. You have to increase TIFIA and Tiger loans and so forth by using the tax code.”

Participants predicted that despite interest at the local level for a creative approach to infrastructure, a federal infrastructure effort would remain focused on building highways—and that’s not necessarily a good thing.



“I think if there’s an infrastructure bill, 80 percent or 90 percent of it will go to highways, because that’s the powerful lobbies, and it will be 10 percent of it going to transit.”

Participants in the POLITICO What Works working group

John Austin, Director, Michigan Economic Center

John Cranley, Mayor of Cincinnati

Ross Gittell, Chancellor, Community College System of New Hampshire

Ray LaHood, former U.S. Secretary of Transportation; Co-Chair, Building America’s Future

Chauncy Lennon, Managing Director and Head of Workforce Initiatives, Global Philanthropy, JPMorgan Chase *Sponsor

Tom Murphy, Senior Resident Fellow, Joseph C. Canizaro/Klingbeil Family Chair for Urban Development, Urban Land Institute, former mayor of Pittsburgh

Aaron Renn, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

Nan Whaley, Mayor of Dayton