> A productive investment in infrastructure [must]: > 1. cover the costs of the infrastructure investment, > 2. pay for the ongoing operations and maintenance

> A productive investment in infrastructure [must]: > 1. cover the costs of the infrastructure investment, > 2. pay for the ongoing operations and maintenance of that infrastructure, > 3. create enough wealth to ultimately pay for the rehabilitation and replacement of that infrastructure, and > 4. provide a return so that our communities can increase their consumption (i.e., improve their quality of life). #3 is a duplicate of #1, and #4 is certain if #1 and #2 are achieved. So really just #1 and #2 matter, and I do agree with those two—but how do you measure the ROI? Are we any good at estimating infrastructure construction, maintenance, and deprecation costs, or measuring (and taxing) economic impact of said infrastructure? My impression is no, because if we were there'd be tons of companies out there building toll roads and railways instead of the government having to will infrastructure into being. If the author's so concerned with Chinese ascendancy, maybe look at how to get the 1.1 billion extra people the United States would need to compete. (Hint: immigration.) Unless they think there's some magic sweet spot beyond which each additional worker is more liability than asset to the economy? From the site, it's clear what Strong Towns is against ("wasteful" infrastructure), but less so what they're for (Self-sufficient-at-zero-growth infra? Agile Manifesto approach to infra?). Speaking of manifestos, I'll leave you with this: "[Capitalism] has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life." -Marx