Infrastructure, Mobility and the Growth of the Modern City: An interview with Oren Tatcher

You may listen to this interview from HERE.

Oren Tatcher is the Principal of OTC Limited, a Hong Kong-based firm specialising in planning and designing airports, transportation terminals and urban mobility, and an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of Urban Planning and Design at The University of Hong Kong. After receiving his Master of Architecture from Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design in 1995, he joined Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM), working first in New York and, from 2003, in Hong Kong and Shanghai, where he served as the urban design studio head. Since founding OTC in 2007, the firm has worked on airport master plans and terminals, railway stations, marine transport terminals, intermodal stations, and urban mobility solutions worldwide. Oren has worked closely with international NGOs and development banks to promote best practices in sustainable transport development and transportation terminal planning. He is a frequent speaker at international symposiums on public transportation and transit-oriented urban development, where he emphasises the importance of high-quality, people-oriented and efficient mobility systems and terminals. He is a member of the Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design and the American Institute of Architects.

Q1. Please introduce yourself and tell us about your current interests.

I have been in Hong Kong for 21 years now, which is probably the biggest surprise in my life’s journey. The rest, including my professional interest in architecture, aviation and transportation, and personal interest in nature and cooking, could probably have all been predicted based on my personality and interests growing up in Israel, to an American father who was a nuclear physicist and an Israeli mother who was an educator. When I left Israel for graduate school in the U.S. I expected to stay there, go back to Israel, or perhaps live somewhere in Europe. Hong Kong, and Asia in general, were never of any interest to me, even as places to visit. I was living in New York when my company at the time, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM), sent me to HK for six months to work on a project at the airport. I know it’s the most cliché expat origin story in HK, but I am still here, even after the troubles of the last 10 years, with no plans to leave. The HK magic still works on me.

I have many intellectual interests, but perhaps the most abiding one is how to thread the needle on sustainable urban development in a world where an increasing number of people are convinced climate change is a hoax, while those who know better are often more concerned with virtue signaling than actual solutions, even in places where the issue is less politicized, like most countries in Asia. In speaking and writing and teaching I hope to bring more critical thinking to the discussion. That, and getting more consistent results from my sourdough baking, a source of endless joy and frustration.

Q2. The topic of urban infrastructure covers so many areas, but perhaps let’s start with how cities are designed to meet the needs of individuals. For example, what is Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and how does this impact the way cities are built and run?

Most cities in the world evolved through a mix of spontaneous and planned development, with results that sometimes do a good job at meeting the needs of individuals, and sometimes less so, not just across different cities but often within the same city. Urban mobility infrastructure is perhaps the most fundamental feature of cities through which we can understand this. At a very basic level, a person’s ability to move around efficiently and comfortably affects almost everything we associate with a good quality of life, like access to work opportunities and leisure facilities and having enough time to spend with your family. An astounding number of cities fail to do an even decent job at that, especially in developing countries where rapid urbanization, poor planning, and lack of resources led to enormous urban sprawls where many people spend hours every day commuting via threadbare transport systems. A lot of my work has been in cities like that, and I have first-hand experience of the wretched journey people go through every day. The worst, of course, is borne by the poor, but even the rich can’t escape the resulting congestion, pollution, and waste of time. And that’s before we even talk about the effects of global warming, which will affect everyone.

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is a concept that basically means let’s build more in areas where there is convenient public transport, so that people don’t have to drive, thus reducing congestion, pollution, and waste of time, for everyone. It emerged in the United States in the 1990s, as a corrective in a country that historically did very little of it, especially in the post-WW2 boom years, which pretty much created the car-centric, suburban development pattern that still dominates the U.S., and probably forever will, because both the suburban lifestyle and the road infrastructure that is its lifeline are impossible to reverse in any meaningful way. TOD cannot work without density, which is the antithesis of suburbia. Interestingly, TOD became a bit of an export industry for the American consultant class, who found a much more receptive audience in developing countries after recalibrating the message, and the solutions, to suit places like China. It was very useful to showcase the U.S. as a cautionary tale.

Hong Kong, somewhat inadvertently, has become the poster child for TOD, mostly because of the MTR Corporation’s very successful “property-plus” development model, but also because, with its exceptional density and high-quality, abundant public transport, the city fell into a virtuous cycle that’s the envy of the TOD world. Unfortunately, this often self-congratulatory success story has obscured problems with mobility in HK, such as its abysmal walking environment, lax enforcement of idling cars parked all over the Central Business District (CBD), a taxi cartel refusing to adopt electronic payment, polluting bus fleets, etc.

Q3. How a piece of infrastructure gets built is an opaque process to the average person so can you discuss the project dynamics between architects, engineers and government? What are the preferences or biases that each party brings to the table and what are the tradeoffs that must be made to get something built?

This, of course, differs wildly from place to place. Let’s consider a relatively transparent, well-run jurisdiction like Hong Kong. A new MTR line typically starts from the government-sponsored Railway Development Strategy study, published once a decade. It is essentially a policy paper produced by an engineering/transport consultant following a public tender, and includes a good level of analysis of options, ending with a list of recommended projects. Following a period of public consultation – one can easily be cynical about how sincere those are, not just in HK – it is typically adopted as the blueprint for further rail development. The MTR, which is the government-controlled monopoly rail operator, then launches a series of design projects, with increasing specificity and detail, turning the high-level alignment concept in the government document into a real project, culminating in its actual construction. While historically the MTR ran the projects, procuring design and then construction separately, increasingly they (and others, such as the Airport Authority) have been relying on design/build contracts for the final stage, which means the final design is carried out by the contractor who will actually build the rail line and the stations. Such contracts are typically broken down into various chunks, and stations specifically are designed and built by different entities. That’s also where architects get into the picture, although there is always some architectural support in the earlier engineer-led studies.

The problem that emerges from this elaborate process is that, even though every contract is subject to a tendering process, the qualification requirements are such that very few large firms qualify, and within those who qualify, an even shorter list tends to be favored based on their track record of prior work with the MTR. So, while not corrupt, it’s a system that is not really open to new entrants and is slow to adopt innovation. I should say again that this is not unique to HK – similar problems exist in other developed economies.

The way it’s done in HK is not perfect, but it’s still the envy of most places in the world in terms of infrastructure development, which on the whole tends to be both thoughtful in conception and efficient in execution. By comparison, in mainland China you get efficient execution, but not always thoughtfulness, while in the U.S. you get maybe too much thoughtfulness but very poor execution because of an insanely bureaucratic process and arguably excessive exposure to dissent from just about anyone.

Of course, in endemically corrupt or otherwise poorly run places you get neither thoughtfulness nor efficiency. Government priorities may reflect favoritism rather than actual needs, and the procurement of design and construction services may be so corrupt that as much as 30% or even more of the cost leaks into kickbacks. It’s not surprising that you get sub-optimal returns for investment, including safety issues being compromised.

Q4. What are master plans and do many cities employ this approach to development? What do these plans cover and what are the strengths and weaknesses of a master plan approach?

Master plans typically define new development areas, although they can also be developed for existing areas in need of improvement. What I consider good ones are based on analysis and provide a comprehensive development framework, starting with the physical features – layout being the most basic of them – as well as various rules that apply to subsequent building development, such as land use distribution, how much floor area is allowed on each parcel, height restrictions, etc. At a fundamental level, it’s the mechanism through which political and social aspirations are translated into living environments, and where, for example, TOD becomes concrete. A master plan can stipulate higher density near transit stations and create secondary mobility networks around those stations for what we call last-mile movement, from the station to home or office, ideally through walking or biking. A master plan can also require community facilities such as schools, parks, or elderly care centers, and locate them in places that are most advantageous to the community.

A lot of master plans have been developed in recent decades for fast-growing cities in developing countries, especially in the Middle East and all around Asia, notably in mainland China, and many of them are quite good, at least in concept. Unfortunately, Hong Kong is still set in its old ways, where instead of proper master plans the government develops “Outline Zoning Plans” (OZP), that are very high-level, even crude, basically defining huge tracts of developable land between roads and infrastructure. Much of the specific features and character of the resulting development is left for private developers to determine. The result is a series of atomized developments built on enormous podiums clustered around MTR stations, with internal circulation that’s mostly meant to lead people to the MTR and shopping facilities and outdoor or green space typically confined to the podium roof. It may be efficient and convenient to residents, but in my opinion the environment created is too often barren and unfriendly, and the city suffers from a lack of good connectivity within and between those developments. This is in contrast to what you see just across the border in Shenzhen, parts of which were developed following good master plans, including tree-lined streets and great parks.

Q5. You are a big advocate of human centered development and transport. What does this mean and how is it reflected in the choices governments make and the livability of cities?

I think there is always an implied human basis for development and transport, and I am not too cynical to think that it’s all a scam to line the pockets of developers, engineers and construction companies, and in some cases, government itself. But it is too often compromised by existing patterns of planning and development. In an arrogant technocracy like Hong Kong, you have a top-down, engineering-led approach, where human needs are considered in the aggregate and individual human desires – ergonomic, economic, even spiritual – are obscured by statistical abstractions based on often-outdated social science. Another form of it typically happens in rich, authoritarian states, where a self-styled visionary leader invites global star consultants to create a monument to their ego in the form of fantastical developments – palm-shaped reclamations, linear cities – that have little or nothing to do with the actual needs and desires of their peoples.

Of course, there is another extreme, where human needs and desires are allowed to slow down and even kill projects through endless consultations and the deployment of potent statutory objection mechanisms, often in the service of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) sentiments of entrenched interests. This is why so little gets done in the U.S. these days. European countries seem to have a better balance.

Q6. A major issue facing cities is the public transport versus private cars debate. How do you go about creating a high quality alternative to the private car, and what role does government have to play to make difficult decisions that impinge on an individual’s “right” to their own car?

For me, the point is not to impinge on the right to own cars. It is to make them the less attractive option, at least in some cases, and I generally favor carrots over sticks. As a time management and ergonomic problem, it is pretty obvious that extensive networks with frequent service, comfortable and safe trains and buses, stations that are easy to access and easy to navigate, all supported by good and dependable information systems are what will be attractive even to the well-heeled to abandon cars and favor public transport over cars. You see this already happening in many cities, mostly in Europe and the developed parts of Asia.

Sometimes, the preference for public transport comes not so much from its quality, but from the deterrent of road congestion or the cost of tolls and parking. A classic case is New York, but places like Beijing also come to mind. Then you have places where government, in order to nudge people towards public transport, introduces real sticks, for example in the form of congestion pricing, as you see in London and Singapore, and perhaps soon in New York. Another option is heavy taxation on car ownership, like in Singapore, although I have heard the argument that this policy has backfired, and that having paid so much to own a car, people feel compelled to use it as much as possible. Negative incentives can be unpredictable, which is why I prefer positive ones, including various forms of subsidies. I think there is a greater good that justifies that.

Q7. Innovation can be both a blessing and a curse, especially when it comes to separating hype from reality. Do the boring but appropriate solutions to urban problems get lost in the sexy, media/VC-driven hype around the latest bit of new tech such as self-driving cars or eVTOL (Electric Vertical Take Off and Landing)? How does this dynamic play out in your industry and can you share some of the practical, unsexy solutions that should be getting more attention?

Real innovation is amazing, but the reality is that the mobility industry has not seen the same kind of dramatic innovation as other fields have. There is no smartphone equivalent in transportation, as much as some people would like to pretend that there is. This is because mobility, at its core, is bound by the hard laws of physics. The latest jetliners are refinements of 1960s technologies, and cars – even electric cars – are essentially descendants of a 19^th Century concept, as are trains and bicycles. Of course, there is a lot of innovation in those refinements, but the only paradigm-shift innovations I can think of in transportation in recent decades have to do with operational models: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), which is a low-cost variation on urban light rail, was first successfully developed in Curitiba, Brazil, and then scaled up in Bogota before being adopted all over the world; and Mobility as a Service (MAS) platforms, such as Uber, which harnessed the power and ubiquity of smartphones and GPS into a completely new type of mobility system. It has its problems, but it’s also sort of brilliant.

The problem today is that a lot of so-called innovation is driven by tech companies fueled by VC money. Someone has said that Silicon Valley is very good at solving problems that 20-somethings experience in the Bay Area, and so being fed up with highway traffic there is what gave rise to the obsession with self-driving cars. This includes Elon Musk and Google down to thousands of companies around the world vying to be the next unicorn in the world of Autonomous Vehicle (AV) technology. I think there is a good chance that in hindsight it will prove to be one of the biggest wastes of money and human intellect the world has ever seen. The reason is because self-driving cars are still cars – big hunks of metal moving around cities, which is as inefficient as a form of mobility as cars have always been. So, they will not solve congestion, and in order to deliver on their promise of safety while moving at a reasonable speed, there will be great pressure to create dedicated lanes and streets for them, which will compromise urban streetscape and pedestrian spaces in a way that just won’t be compatible with traditional cities as we know and love them, and therefore be rejected by the public in those cities. They may still work in suburban environments and anti-pedestrian cities like Dubai, but they won’t be the transportation panacea we have been promised.

Then there is the lack of a convincing business model, the sticky issue of liability in case of accidents – is it the owner? The car maker? The software company? – and the huge problem of transitioning from a world of people-driven cars to AVs. I think it’s all quite intractable and by the time regulators, lawyers, insurance companies and the car companies themselves start thinking about it seriously the whole concept will collapse, even before it gets to the court of public opinion.

Don’t get me wrong – there are areas where AVs do make sense, namely in dedicated environments or where speed is not an issue. Airports are increasingly making use of them for various restricted-area applications, like baggage handling, and there is growing interest in AVs as shuttles moving in dedicated lanes. We have actually been involved in the planning of one such system in Hong Kong that I think will be quite successful within its limited but realistic scope.

The problem I have with some of these new technologies is that they often divert attention and funds from unglamorous but more relevant solutions to urban mobility problems, such as more metro lines where those are possible, bike and BRT lanes, electric buses to reduce emissions, etc. As I mentioned previously, I do think new technologies have a large role to play in refining mobility systems, whether through more efficient engine technologies, operational models like Uber, or information systems that will do a better job matching supply and demand and streamlining public transport journeys. But I think it is unfortunate that so much attention is given to technologies that are high on sex-appeal, like AVs or eVTOL, but are not scalable and thus not practical as a solution to moving billions of people every day on their journeys from home to work or from school to sports grounds. Just because something is technologically possible does not mean it is useful or good for humanity. eVTOLs are basically electric and maybe autonomous helicopters, with very small capacity and outsized noise and safety issues. We know who those are for. Cities that will be spending a lot of money on eVTOL infrastructure, as some are being urged to do, will not be doing right by the majority of their citizens in my opinion.

Q8. What are your thoughts on high-speed rail? China, Japan and Europe have extensive networks while countries like the US and India have yet to operate a single line. What are the strengths and weaknesses of high-speed rail and why is it so hard to get them built?

First of all, we need to understand what high-speed rail (HSR) really means, and what it requires, especially as compared to traditional intercity rail. As the name implies, it is all about speed, and in order to achieve high speed, the alignment of the rail lines needs to be as close as possible to a straight, level line; curves and steeper inclines force the high-speed trains to slow down closer to the speed of regular trains, thus negating the whole idea.

So, while some people are captivated by their so-called “futuristic”, aerodynamic shape and speed records, the real challenge with HSR is building the right infrastructure. This is where state power – whether in China, Japan, or Europe – is essential. Those straight alignments inevitably brush against property rights, making their construction either prohibitively expensive or impossible. That’s why the U.S. has not been able to build any real HSR lines, and quite possibly never will, and why China was able to build such an extensive network in unbelievable speed.

The less-often understood aspect of HSR is whether it makes sense as a mobility network. It’s a nuanced question that is rarely posed, say as part of a cost-benefit analysis, whether because there is no interest in, or time for, nuance – China comes to mind – or because politics make the issue too thorny to address. The reality is that HSR makes sense as a link between major metropolitan areas within a certain distance range. Below, say, 100km, the speed of regular trains is sufficient for reasonable travel times, and above, say, 1,000km, flying begins to make much more sense, even when you factor in the hassle involved in flying and the distance of airports from city centers. But when you start adding a lot of interim stops in mid-sized cities, which require trains to slow down and often detour from the shortest path between the metropolitan areas, the rationale for HSR begins to weaken, especially in places where aviation links are already well-established, and the cost of infrastructure is high. Therefore, while Paris-Lyon – the original TGV line, and the first HSR service outside Japan – makes good sense, as does Madrid-Barcelona, I’m not sure Brussels-Antwerp does, or that Hong Kong-Beijing does, except as a curiosity. Of course, both of these latter route examples exist as part of larger networks, which is what makes the analysis complicated, as does the fact that rail is often seen, especially in Europe, as the better choice for the environment, even if it adds to the overall travel time.

It will be interesting to watch how the use of the HSR network in China evolves over time. It now covers much of the country, but new routes are increasingly built in sparsely populated regions. Will it spur development? Will the cost of providing rail service, especially in remote areas, be indefinitely sustained by generous state subsidies? On the other hand, the network has already delivered a justifiable sense of national purpose and pride, which may trump all other considerations.

By comparison, HSR development in Europe has been much more incremental and fragmented, and interestingly occurred in parallel with the rise of low-cost airlines, which offer service to a lot of secondary airports with a focus on leisure travel. At the risk of over-simplifying the situation, my observation is that HSR in Europe is heavily used by business people going between business hubs, while low-cost flying is used by everyone else (including the same business people going on holiday). I don’t want to read too much into this – economically, socially, or politically – but I do think it’s an interesting phenomenon that needs to be considered when looking at this issue.

Q9. Shifting gears and looking at a specific example, can you talk about Hong Kong’s Airport Express train? To those of us living here, this is a marvel of design and convenience. How did it get built and what are some of the details and aspects that we might not be able to appreciate, especially in relation to the airport and city that it serves?

Hong Kong’s Airport Express is, for me, the best way in the world to get in or out of an airport. We are very lucky to be living in a city that offers that service. For those who don’t know it, the brilliance of the service is that in both the city terminals and at the airport, in most cases there is virtually no level change between the train platform and where you are coming from or going to. It’s deceptively simple but actually achieving that simplicity required a lot of clever planning and integration of the rail alignment with the airport terminal building and urban stations.

In my book, this is real innovation, one that does not rely on flashy technology but comes from a deep understanding of customers’ ergonomic desires, or perhaps a more mundane desire to save cost on vertical circulation. Either way, it’s especially striking on arrival. After landing in HK, if you take the train, you will encounter not a single stair or escalator or lift between the plane door and the entrance of your apartment building, assuming you take a taxi from the urban rail station. It’s a real Wow, and a brilliant concept that no one has been able to emulate, because they either don’t get it, or they don’t care.

Q10. You’re a fan of New York’s Grand Central Station and enjoy giving tours of that remarkable piece of infrastructure. Can you share why it is so significant and what makes it unique in terms of its position and role in New York City?

For me, Grand Central is the original TOD, and perhaps still the best. I’m not sure who can take credit for the concept – that was totally original at the time – of burying an entire station underground and developing the land above and around it. It was made possible by rail electrification, as older stations had to be ventilated, which is why you had those big sheds in 19^th Century stations, and no doubt driven by old-fashioned profiteering. Everybody knows the ornate headhouse on 42^nd Street and Park Avenue, but the station platforms stretch far north, east and west, under a lot of massive buildings that most people think sit on the ground. The result is uninterrupted urban fabric and an almost-complete continuation of the Manhattan grid throughout the site, which is great for mobility, and enormous value creation around the station and along Park Avenue.

Compare that to the huge interruptions in urban fabric that you see in similar terminals in Europe, such as all the major Paris or London stations. Something similar was done on a smaller scale around Grand Central’s tragic twin sister, Penn Station, but it is only recently – more than 100 years after Grand Central – that similar air-rights development have been implemented over other stations, like King’s Cross in London, and the huge railyard west of Penn Station, which has now become the Hudson Yards development. It’s very complicated to do, especially after the fact, because you have to thread structure and utilities serving those developments in the narrow spaces between tracks, among other challenges.

In Hong Kong, the MTR has been using the space above rail depots for development for decades, starting with Telford Plaza in Kowloon Bay, where its headquarters are still located, but these suffer from the atomized MTR development features I mentioned earlier. The high-speed rail station in West Kowloon is deep underground but, in contrast with those other developments, it was driven by the rail alignment coming from the north, not any TOD agenda.

Q11. In your career, you have worked in many cities around the world. Can you share examples of projects on which you’ve worked and why things went either right or wrong?

My favorite “right” project is the SkyPier Terminal at Hong Kong International Airport, where ferry services connect Macau and mainland cities in the Greater Bay Area (GBA) directly to the airport, skipping HK border controls. In essence, those ferry services function like connecting flights – for example, you can check in and check your bag in the ferry terminal in Dongguan, take the ferry, go through security in SkyPier, and then board the train that takes you directly to your gate – your bag will go all the way to your final destination, say Los Angeles or Frankfurt. The same in reverse. It’s so seamless that Cathay Pacific sells tickets to and from these ferry terminals, as if they were airports – they even have their own 3-letter IATA identifiers. This service has now been expanded to include coach services coming on the HK-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge, with remote coach terminals in both Zhuhai and Macau. It’s a great GBA project that no one talks about, probably because HK people cannot use it.

Sadly, I have learned to expect disappointment when it comes to our urban transport projects in developing countries, where they often face major economic and political hurdles. One of the biggest disappointments was our design for several stations and mobility facilities ahead of the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, including the main transport gateway to the Olympic Park, all of which were either severely compromised in their final execution or cancelled outright due to budget constraints – and they were not even very complicated!

Another was what would have been the biggest intermodal hub in Latin America, in Mexico City, combined with TOD, with 4 rail terminals, two bus terminals, and a whole lot of commercial space in a Public–Private Partnership (PPP) model. The design was very advanced when a new municipal administration came in and decided to cancel it, for nakedly political reasons. It was also the time the federal government decided to cancel the new Mexico City airport. The terminal was designed by Norman Foster, and we had a very small role in planning the transport links, partly inspired by Hong Kong. The project, already US$5B or so underway, was cancelled just because the President said he would do so during his campaign. Such a shame.

Q12. How are concerns about climate change and sustainability changing views on building and maintaining urban infrastructure? What are some of the trends you’re seeing, both in terms of positive changes as well as the inevitable greenwashing?

The industry has clearly changed. Twenty years ago, sustainability was not even mentioned, at least not in the specific way it is understood today, with a focus on minimizing greenhouse gases. Now it is written into every project, certainly every public one, in the form of various energy Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and so forth. On a building level, too often there is an emphasis on what I consider greenwashing, with features like “green walls” or “green roofs”, that are almost always energy and water inefficient and don’t even look good, at least in my opinion. These green walls look like they are covered in plastic plants, although they are usually real.

I tend to emphasize the importance of sustainable urban mobility. TOD, that we discussed earlier, has obvious benefits, given the high energy footprint of private cars, even electric ones if you consider power generation. A greater reliance on mass transit, which is a core feature of TOD, is an obvious path to lowering emissions. It’s why a city like Hong Kong has a far smaller level of energy consumption per person compared to car-oriented cities such as Los Angeles or even Singapore.

Another way to reduce carbon emissions associated with transport is to encourage mixed-use developments, where many people can just walk or bike from home to work to shopping, etc. This model works perfectly on a village or small town scale, but becomes more challenging in large cities, where one’s place of employment may be far away from where one lives, even if both are in mixed-use areas. For example, much of Manhattan is mixed-use, but it’s a big place, and so most people still take the subway for their daily commute, even though there has been a notable uptick in the use of bikes, following the construction of an impressive network of bike lanes during the Bloomberg administration. But bikes are not for everyone, which is why I believe the backbone of urban mobility needs to be a mix of walking and mass transit.

Q13. Please share any favorite books, blogs, podcasts or other resources that readers could use to improve their understanding of architecture, design, urban planning or any other related topics.  

I highly recommend 99% Invisible (99PI), a podcast hosted by Roman Mars, that explores urban and architectural design issues. Their celebration of the 50^th anniversary of The Power Broker – Robert Caro’s seminal biography of Robert Moses, who led many aspects of New York’s development for half a century – is a phenomenal achievement, even if I disagree with a lot of the sentiments expressed by the hosts and their various guests. The book itself is a long but rewarding deep dive into the relationship between politics, economics, and urban development. Jane Jacobs’ 1961 book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, is a classic introduction to the relationship between urban form and the life of communities, that single-handedly changed the mid-20^th Century modernist urban planning paradigm, which is alas still alive and well in Hong Kong. Jacobs was also instrumental in bringing about the fall of Robert Moses, but that’s a whole other topic.

The political podcaster Ezra Klein occasionally talks about the challenges of building things in the U.S., something that I believe he is also writing a book about. He is excellent in general.

The British journalist Christian Wolmar writes a lot about public transport, including a 2019 book titled Driverless Cars: On a Road to Nowhere? It is still an eye-opening read on the subject.

I had the pleasure of studying with Alan Altshuler many years ago, and his book (with David Luberoff) Mega Projects offers very insightful analysis of the politics around several large-scale infrastructure projects in the U.S., including roads and airports, in the second half of the 20^th Century, but much of those insights are still relevant.

Lastly, The Lost Art of Walking is a small and rather lyrical book by Geoff Nicholson. It’s not specifically about cities and infrastructure, but through delightful anecdotes offers insights into walking as a fundamental human activity.

If you or your company has a due diligence requirement or needs assistance on a fraud issue, corporate investigation, risk advisory, or other related matters, please contact us at info@kalavinkaadvisors.com or +852 2196 2727