12 ms·

Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street?

197 points by jtsnow 10y ago

mfoy_ 10y ago
Interesting article, and great visuals. The Sankey Diagram of the budget was very nice and of course all the interactive maps bear mentioning. I think that anecdote about the "free" parking structure was really telling. The federal government swooped in and built a bunch of parking space then left the lesser governments squabbling over whose responsibility it wasn't. More importantly, I think the best solution is to just pay more taxes. But "paying more taxes" seems to be antithetical to most Americans. It's like the American Dream has just become "having nice things and not paying for them".
- x0x0 10y ago
  I have to share one of my favorite anecdotes. CA colleges are, for a number of reasons (prop 13, etc), in perpetual budget crises. A mother with a daughter in a UC was interviewed on tv whining about the impact of budget cuts on her daughter's education. After about a minute of this moron whinging, the reporter asked if she would be willing to pay a couple hundred dollars per year more in tax if it were dedicated to the UC system. Given my description of her, you know the answer: Of course not! We're overtaxed! Most people are too stupid to understand that if we want nice things, we have to collectively pay for them. Though to be fair, there's plenty of politicians (see Republicans in Kansas, Louisiana, etc) telling people what they want to hear: tax cuts pay for themselves...
  - mfoy_ 10y ago
    I'm not surprised at all that people would hold such contradictory views, simultaneously demanding tax cuts and service improvements, but it is surprising that someone could utter them in the same breath and keep a straight face. Maybe it's just a lack of self awareness?
    - beberlei 10y ago
      any government budget is just too big to get any feeling for this imho. And you can either always argue that its just spend on the wrong things, like military, espionage, social security or that others are not paying enough, like Apple only paying very little taxes because they hoard their money abroad.
      - Zikes 10y ago
        Yep, budget mismanagement and being underfunded are completely separate things. It's entirely possible that the "moron" woman interviewed believed that the budget was plenty, but being negligently mis-spent.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      I don't think people really understand where the money is going. I just looked at the numbers in the article, and I'm shocked that the upkeep of a little stretch of road in front of your house costs almost a thousand dollars a year. We just get used to that stuff being around and forget it costs money. People think that way about all infrastructure, actually. "They want to raise water rates? What for?! We already pay $36/month!" Nobody thinks about the cost of digging up streets, replacing worn pipes, upgrading treatment plants, etc.
    - rbritton 10y ago
      For some I'm sure it is, but I believe there's another facet to it: waste. A lot of tax revenue is totally wasted, and while some is almost certainly inevitable in an organization as large as the government, I strongly feel that no taxes should be raised or imposed until all reasonable avenues of reducing that have been pursued. For example, this should not be a thing: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08333.pdf http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08333.pdf
      - x0x0 10y ago
        By setting up conditions that will never be met, you're insisting that taxes never be raised. Which is fine, but just honestly advocate for that. Also, that pdf is singularly stupid. Look at the first page: they found waste of $77k in the DoD! In a budget approaching one TRILLION dollars. There's always going to be a couple percent of waste; that's life in any big organization, public or private. Even if their 50% waste is accurate -- hell, even if it's 100% waste -- they're discussing $15B in a $3T federal budget -- half a percent.
  - akchin 10y ago
    This might be unpopular, but California is a great example of a place where taxes are high, but it is not spent well. I remember looking at this a few years back, and although the state claims that 2/3 of state tax dollars goes towards education, a lot of it is supporting pensions and benefits of previous generation employees and teachers. While this is admirable, it essentially takes money away from today's generation for unsustainable promises made by unions and political leaders in the 80s and 90s. CA already has one of the highest marginal tax rates in the US of 9.5%, so it is understandable the woman does not want to pay more. For schooling, Prop 13 is an even bigger issue. Even though property taxes are high for new buyers, schools are underfunded. Parents essentially are paying higher taxes in the form of fundraising to support science and other enrichment classes, which cannot be supported by the state. There were somewhat noble ideas behind Prop 13, but essentially what we have in California, is that newer residents of Californa bear a disproportionate amount of the burden.
    - x0x0 10y ago
      While I'm with you on prop 13, we combine high income taxes with exceptionally low property taxes for long term property holders. Again, if we want nice things, we have to pay for them. As for pensions, you say unsustainable promises, I say stealing from people who took cash later instead of cash immediately. Consider your last boss deciding to reach into your checking account and take $40k out because the business retroactively decided they overpaid. According to this http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2016CAbs_17bs2n_0002#usgs302 http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2016CAbs_1... pensions are 36.9/208.2 = 18% of the state budget.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        It's possible to be unhappy with underfunded pensions and also think it would be unfair to change them retroactively.
      - bradleyjg 10y ago
        The point is that the politicians back then stole from the future. If they were going to promise cash in the future the should have set aside money back then to pay for it. It's one thing when a government borrows money to pay for a capital project that will last long after they are out of office. The net present value of an accruing pension is an operating cost and should be paid for as the obligation is incurred.
  - BurningFrog 10y ago
    This argument rests on the assumption that taxes are spent wisely and fairly.
  - baddox 10y ago
    If you're wanting to be fair, you should also bring up the very real (and reasonable) possibility that this woman would rather existing tax revenue be spent on education than some of the things it is currently being spent on. There is nothing contradictory about feeling overtaxed and also feeling that insufficient tax revenue is being spent on education.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
cosmeen 10y ago
site seems down for me, use google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FtW484izsTQJ:mapstoryblog.thenittygritty.org/costofstreets/ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FtW484i...
clarkmoody 10y ago
First and foremost, we need to abolish the laws that caused this all to happen. Yes, that’s right – all of this was required to happen, by law. Many people think that sprawl is a free market phenomenon, and they are exactly wrong. Sprawl is caused by the following policies – I call these Sprawl Laws; you can find them for yourself in your local city code (for the most succinct explanation, see this paper[1]): * Zoning * Setbacks * Minimum parking requirements * Minimum lot sizes * Maximum units per lot * Minimum road widths Add school district zoning into the mix, and you have the full recipe for where our cities are today. [1] http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1434&context=scholarlyworks http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
- avar 10y ago
  Very pertinent previous HN discussion about the difference between Japanese and US zoning: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8540845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8540845
- rayiner 10y ago
  It's interesting that some of the most charming neighborhoods in the country (e.g. Chelsea in New York, DuPont in D.C.) were built before all that crap. You'd never build a "modern city" like Philadelphia, with its narrow one-way streets, lack of parking, and commercial and retail mish-mashed together. But most of the rest of the country feels dead in comparison.
  - BurningFrog 10y ago
    Make that the world. At least in Stockholm all the most desirable locations would be illegal to build today for dozens of reasons. Meanwhile, newly built areas range from awful to tolerable.
    - kuschku 10y ago
      > You'd never build a "modern city" like Philadelphia, with its narrow one-way streets, lack of parking, and commercial and retail mish-mashed together. And yet, that’s what’s being built in most of europe. Make streets smaller, remove parking, build mixed use buildings. [1] http://www.kn-online.de/var/storage/images/kn/news/nachrichten-aus-kiel/bauherren-preis-2015-gestaltungswille-auf-engstem-raum/396565854-1-ger-DE/Gestaltungswille-auf-engstem-Raum_gallerylarge.jpg http://www.kn-online.de/var/storage/images/kn/news/nachricht... [2] http://abload.de/img/img_1863whsfj.jpg http://abload.de/img/img_1863whsfj.jpg [3] http://www.schlossquartier-kiel.de/fileadmin/images/01.jpg http://www.schlossquartier-kiel.de/fileadmin/images/01.jpg Be it one-lane roads, be it building mixed use buildings, etc – these projects are all either built this year, or still under construction. It’s not a global issue, definitely more of a US issue.
maxsilver 10y ago
There's this assumption that are $15-$18 per square foot. I'm no expert here, but I think that number might be roughly double what cities actually pay, based on this document from the State of Michigan : https://www.michigan.gov/documents/Vol2-40UIP16SubDevCosts-YardCosts-Demolition_121083_7.pdf https://www.michigan.gov/documents/Vol2-40UIP16SubDevCosts-Y... It's a decade old, but I'm seeing only $8/square foot cost, not $15+. Using the rest of the authors map + numbers, the majority of properties are now actually covering their street costs, with some room to spare for extras (such as curbs, sewers, sidewalks, etc, which suburban sprawl-type streets typically don't have). Of course, Michigan roads are infamous for being terrible -- this might be the reason. It might also be worth considering that a lot of high-end sprawl costs the city nothing in maintenance for their roads, since they are privately paved / plowed / maintained by HOAs.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  How are you arriving at $8? The footnote on page 2 puts it maybe close to that at minimum just for the construction (the article is including 30 years of maintenance).
  - maxsilver 10y ago
    I'm not including water mains, electricity, and gas mains. (Since they aren't really part of the street -- they generate their own revenue through usage charges + other taxes). Here's another person also arriving at roughly $8/sqft in California : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11640167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11640167
- ffumarola 10y ago
  CPI from 2003 to 2016 would bring that $8 up to $10.35, FWIW. And then, as you mentioned, road quality may come in to play. As would labor costs and other factors.
  - fraserharris 10y ago
    And that doesn't incorporate the government administration cost, which the author's number includes (by taking the actual city budget).
jdavis703 10y ago
Based on the amount of potholes and cracks on the streets bounding my apartment, I'm almost certain that we (me) aren't paying for the street to be maintained.
bagels 10y ago
I don't know why the author only does an analysis of just property taxes contributing to road maintenance. Most people in the US are contributing additional taxes in the form of: * Gasoline taxes * State and local sales taxes * State and federal income taxes Those taxes are available to build and maintain infrastructure as well. Whether they are [used for that purpose] or not is a different question. I know that I am contributing more than enough taxes to maintain the small patch of road in front of where I live by the author's cost analysis.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  I don't know what other towns or states look like but from what I can see all those sources are already stretched pretty thin.
- ItsDeathball 10y ago
  It's mentioned in the article that this is about local, city-maintained streets. Unless you live directly on a state or federal highway, those gas taxes, state sales taxes, and income taxes do not go towards the street you live one. Local sales taxes may, and the author includes these in the diagram of the city budget. Your largest contribution to the maintenance of city infrastructure is in property taxes, either directly or through rent. It's also worth noting that the article only accounts for road surface maintenance. Adding in sewage and water expenses would likely not be favorable.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    A Google search for "federal street construction grant" indicates otherwise. There's lots of results discussing such grants.
  - Agustus 10y ago
    Gas taxes go to federal, state, and local (county level).
  - bagels 10y ago
    I would assume that a lot of people on HN pay more state income & sales taxes than property taxes through rent.
jsprogrammer 10y ago
The analysis seems to include the material and labor costs of building the street. Most peoples' street was already built by the time it became theirs, so, of course their taxes didn't pay for any of the substantial costs that were previously laid out. Moreover, looking at only a single year's budget would not represent the years with large expenditures on streets, or take into account increased, future amortized payments to cover costs. Ultimately, we can know that this particular article is invalid because it is representing "long-term costs estimated by unnamed civil engineer as a global average" as "the actual costs of the streets in my city", and "the actual costs of the streets in my city" for "all my city wants to bill me for my streets, even though they actually cost a lot more". Further, the article never explains who actually paid the costs, nor how this all relates to a claimed Growth Ponzi Scheme, or even evidence of property taxes halving...ever.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  Oh, wow, did no one read the article?
fiatjaf 10y ago
What do you mean by "for streets"? What about the rest of the taxes, not tied to any specific public service?
fiatjaf 10y ago
See also: http://andrewalexanderprice.com/blog.php http://andrewalexanderprice.com/blog.php for lots of pictures.
massysett 10y ago
The author never made the case that a property owner is SUPPOSED to pay for the cost of the street, so I'm not even motivated to figure out whether the analysis is correct or not. The government is not a bank. You're not supposed to "get out what you put in" or "pay for what you use." The government provides things for the public good: roads, education, police, military, etc. Of course some government is a Ponzi scheme in the sense that some people "pay for more than they use." That's called progressive taxation. So if the evil sprawlsters are subsidizing the older roads...so what? The evil sprawlsters can afford it. It would be just as ridiculous to write an article about how "people with children in schools aren't paying the cost of the school" or good grief even "people who have a fire aren't paying the cost of the fire department." Roads are provided for the public good. So it really doesn't matter that the author doesn't even address the fact that many of these supposedly deadbeat property owners are paying a whole bunch of taxes that are keeping the city of Ames afloat, along with its supposedly inaccurate road tax scheme.
- x0x0 10y ago
  The point, as I read it, is this only works as long as there is enough growth to pay for upkeep of older infrastructure. The second the growth slows, or even stops, there's trouble. And nobody is arguing you should only get out what you put in, but on average, if property taxes are barely high enough to pay for the street in front of that house, it's obvious there will be a problem.
- dionidium 10y ago
  So if the evil sprawlsters are subsidizing the older roads...so what? The evil sprawlsters can afford it. I think you (and probably the author) have got this exactly backwards. Sprawl creates blight when the rate of building outpaces the needs of population growth. The evil sprawlsters are creating new costs, but they aren't subsidizing old roads. The sprawl usually happens outside of long-ago drawn city borders, anyway. If you have 5 families living in 5 houses in the urban core and you build 5 new houses for them to live in out in the suburbs, then population needs to double for there to be full occupancy. As a case study, take a look at my home town of St. Louis. Much has been made about the city's population loss. But that's just in the urban core; the region's population has actually grown slightly over the last 40 years. It just hasn't grown fast enough to fill up all the new houses we've built out across the river. The sprawlsters aren't subsidizing the old roads. They have completely abandoned them and are leaving them to nature.
warfangle 10y ago
Don't most streets with houses on them have houses on both sides of the street? In which case if two houses are each paying 60% the cost of the street on their frontage, isn't there a 20% overage?
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The calculation shown has a width/2 in it.
  - gefh 10y ago
    Good eye, I missed that.
    - largote 10y ago
      I missed it too and I came to the comments to complain about it, I guess the author didn't make it very clear.
HighPlainsDrftr 10y ago
I've always wondered why we pave our streets to begin with. Yes, I know that dirt and gravel kick up alot of dust, but the expense of the street itself seems a bit extreme as well. I can't think of how many times I've seen a new street go in, and just a few weeks later they cut it up and dig up a water line to replace it. There has to be a better material besides concrete or asphalt that would provide similar benefits. The other part, while I don't know how you would get around it, seems to be the fact that my car tires are about 10" wide (20" combined). The street in front of my house is 80' wide. Thats an awful lot of space not being used.
- machrider 10y ago
  For one thing, you can safely go a lot faster on asphalt than on dirt while still being able to round corners and come to a stop.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    If you draw a distinction between streets (~access) and roads (~transport) that isn't really a good reason. People around here drive too fast on streets as it is.
- stellar678 10y ago
  I'm sure there are some road users this wouldn't work for, but check out permeable interlocking pavers. I encountered some country roads in Germany that were paved with these for many kilometers. It was a beautiful and pleasant place to ride.
  - xyzzyz 10y ago
    These wear pretty quickly upon use.
- massysett 10y ago
  "I've always wondered why we pave our streets to begin with." Dramatic reduction in particulate air pollution. There have been programs to reduce air pollution in towns along the US - Mexico border. Folks on the US side paid to have roads paved in Mexico so it would reduce pollution--it was cheaper than taking incremental steps on the US side.
theanomaly 10y ago
I'm confused It’s simple – here’s how it works: Say a community is built in Year 1. The community’s streets need to be rebuilt every 30 years. In Year 30 a new, identical community is built. Now twice the amount of taxes are coming, and so for time being the property owners only need to pay half the amount. And 30 years later, in Year 60, two new communities are built; as long as the number of properties and property taxes are doubling every 30 years, they can continue to pay half the amount. Year 1, one community (community A), over the next 30 years is going to pay for 1 community's worth of roads (call it a 30 year loan given on day 1, let's say 1M dollars). So, the cost for community A is 1M dollars for 30 community-years of roads. Year 30, we add a new community B to the mix. This community needs its own roads, so it needs a loan for 1M dollars it will pay off over the next 30 years. However, community A's roads have worn out. Community A just finished paying off their first loan, so they'll need a new one. At year 60, we have paid 3M dollars, and gotten 90 "community-years" of roads out of it. This is no different than the equivalent end of the first year with one community, one loan, and 30 "community-years" of roads. What am i missing from this example?
- aaronbwebber 10y ago
  Community A doesn't take out a loan. The roads were built with exogenous funds. Starting in 30 years, Community A has to start paying X dollars a year in maintenance on it's roads. Community A taxes itself $X/2 per year and pays for a fire department with it. In Year 30, Community B is built with exogenous funds. Starting in 30 years, Community B has to start paying $X a year in maintenance on it's roads. Community A has to raise taxes to $X, half of which goes to maintenance on it's roads and half of which goes to A's fire department, and Community B starts paying $X in taxes every year, half of which goes to maintenance on A's roads and half of which goes to B's fire department. In Year 60, Community A and Community B each have to come up with an additional $X/2 per year in taxes or cut their fire departments.
- mabbo 10y ago
  Infrastructure is expensive to replace. These towns and cities are only able to afford to do so by making new subdivisions pay for it. This works so long as you keep growing exponentially, forever, which you won't. Someday, there won't be new people to pay for it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gnicholas 10y ago
The cost estimates for road construction the author uses are probably roughly the same across the country. Property taxes, on the other hand, vary widely. So at most, he's proving that in Iowa—where property prices are relatively low—there may be an imbalance. But this tells us very little about whether there is a widespread problem. Go to a higher cost of living area, or an area with higher population density, and the math looks very different.
elchief 10y ago
Driverless cars solve this problem pretty soon The end result is going to be about ~80% fewer cars in existence.
- bduerst 10y ago
  Why? Drivers or not, cars still need roads to reach locations.
  - largote 10y ago
    But you can have streets which are far narrower as driverless cars can coordinate on how to make it work well.
  - startling 10y ago
    Presumably, fewer cars means less road repair necessary.
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      I'd assume it was miles, not cars, that would govern. 1 car driven 20 miles causes as much wear as 2 cars driven 10 miles each. Driverless cars may increase total miles driven, by making driving more convenient and shared cars (which many driverless cars would become) increase miles by adding "deadhead" miles to reposition between dropoff X-1 and pickup X.
  - elchief 10y ago
    Ya, but they don't need a lane everywhere to park if there's 80% fewer of them
cletus 10y ago
I wonder if at some point we'll look back at the 20th century for what it was: a complete disaster of urban planning as sacrifice to the Church of the Car. I live in NYC. It still befuddles me when I see people driving around Manhattan (why??). On a Saturday you can see traffic backed up half a mile to get to the Holland Tunnel. How was any of this not entirely foreseeable? Why do people endure it? Anyway I discussed with someone how much space is allocated to free or highly subsidized parking. The going rate for land in Manhattan is >$600/sq ft now. Back-of-the-envelope estimates of the land dedicated to parking below 125th street puts the value of these parking spots at around $2 billion. A parking spot in prime real estate would be close to $100k. It's maintained by the city, chokes traffic and is given away for free (in a lot of cases). Why doesn't it generate revenues of $10k/year or roughly $30/day at the very minimum? In most parts of the US living without a car is nigh-on-impossible. The dismantling of streetcars is many cities at the behest of the auto industry has been well-covered. Something else I find interesting: the gun debate is contentious. Some argue guns make crime more likely. Others argue it's people not guns that are the problem. Why isn't there this same debate about cars? I don't think they're inherently bad but you have to consider that the car made a lot of crimes possible that previously weren't (or at least weren't practical). Kidnappings, serial killings, bank robberies, burglaries, smuggling (eg cigarettes/alcohol across state lines) often feature a car or truck as a necessary component of the crime. When people talk about crime getting worse over time, how much of this can be correlated with the ease and propensity of car ownership? Anyway, as for urban planning, it's amazing how much people expect the city, state and Federal governments to subsidize their lifestyle choices with infrastructure like roads, sewer lines, water and the like. Rarely do these developments pay for their own infrastructure (it's at least subsidized to some degree). How quickly society changes to where car ownership and all the infrastructure required became viewed as some God given right.
- ars 10y ago
  > I wonder if at some point we'll look back at the 20th century for what it was: a complete disaster of urban planning as sacrifice to the Church of the Car. Never, that's when. Some people (not you) actually like to have the space to live in. So you need a car. The goal is not the car, the goal is space. It's not a disaster at all, it's a breath of fresh air, having space. > I live in NYC. You do that, and I'll stay far away from that place. I've been there, I would absolutely loath to live there. > ....gun....car....crime You have got to be kidding. The crime rate in cities is much higher, if anything cars reduce crime.
williesleg 10y ago
I'll let you in on a little secret. You see, anyone can make a donation to the US Treasury, or their local city, town, state or county. Those that feel they aren't paying enough can freely donate more. But you know what? They won't. It's just a scam. They want more money from us, and they'll waste it just like they're wasting existing cash. Look at the retirement benefits for people in your community. Here in NY, we have teachers and administrators who have retired from schools and school districts clearing over $500,000 per YEAR in retirement! WTF!!! That's the scam we're all dealing with.
JoblessWonder 10y ago
I think there are a few problems with the math but the largest seems to be his costs seem out of whack. Creating a new road is more expensive than any maintenance/entire repaving since it shouldn't need to be re-graded/piped/utilities dealt with/etc. Sunnyvale in California quotes a variety of prices for street maintenance up to reconstruction and none are over $7/sq foot.[1] And this is in California where constructions costs are usually high compared to the rest of the nation. [1] http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Departments/PublicWork/StreetMaintenance/StreetMaintenanceProcesses.aspx http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Departments/PublicWork/StreetMainten...
bbarn 10y ago
As a cyclist, I get a lot of reasons I shouldn't be on the road thrown at me from people with uneducated opinions, but this one - this misconception right here that driving pays for roads, is the only one that makes my blood boil. I think if more people understood what actually pays for the roads it would cut down on the sense of entitled driving so many seem to have in general.
- kspaans 10y ago
  The UK has a campaign dedicated to this: http://ipayroadtax.com/ http://ipayroadtax.com/ Admittedly it's more due to the UK's peculiar form of taxation (in a netshell: occupiers of houses pay "council tax" rather than owners paying "property tax"). But the website is a little dated, I hear they re-instated a ring-fenced sales tax on cars that will go towards road development.
stevep001 10y ago
City policies on this vary so much that it's impossible to generalize. That said, newer cities often end up forgetting that they need to pay for street reconstruction. The original cost of the street is usually included in the initial price of the house. Sophisticated cities maintain a model (commonly called a pavement management program) that lets them predict future maintenance cost across the city. He misses the fact that Ames does get tax money for street maintenance [1] and reconstruction [2]. His estimate for a properly maintained street is quite low -- other Midwestern US cities are able to get 60-70 years from their streets. He also misses out on special assessments as a source of revenue -- which is very common for residential street projects. [1] http://www.cityofames.org/home/showdocument?id=22486 http://www.cityofames.org/home/showdocument?id=22486 page 178 shows state taxes as a revenue source [2] http://www.cityofames.org/home/showdocument?id=8045 http://www.cityofames.org/home/showdocument?id=8045 page 91/92 shows a variety of sources, including state taxes
- kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
  >other Midwestern US cities are able to get 60-70 years from their streets. By neglecting them when they are horribly cracked and potholed after 25 years. Then they make up for their long term "investment" in concrete by skim coating with asphalt.
  - stevep001 10y ago
    Or by applying maintenance at the right time to keep streets in good condition -- see, for example, the chart here: https://www.bloomingtonmn.gov/sites/default/files/media/PMP-brochure.pdf https://www.bloomingtonmn.gov/sites/default/files/media/PMP-... If you're curious about your city, key question to ask is whether they have a pavement condition database. If they don't, they have no idea what the right amount of maintenance is. If they do, they should be able to predict whether they are spending at the right rate, and predict the same for the next several years.
fhrjfjc 10y ago
So how's that war against "sprawl" working out for San Francisco? Oh right...
codingdave 10y ago
I can only speak for my own city, but the cost of building out new roads and infrastructure for new development is paid for not by property taxes, but by the building permits for the development. They actually just had a city council meeting outlining the expected growth over the next 5 years, its expected cost, and the resulting fees for building various types of residential and commercial development. So the article is correct, that property taxes do not pay for it all. But that is not the only source of revenue.
- andys627 10y ago
  Who pays in 30 years when it needs to be repaved?
Wile_E_Quixote 10y ago
I'm guessing this partially depends on region, and is of course partially dependent on both, but what is the primary factor limiting the lifespan of road surfaces: usage or weather (rain, snow, winter salt, etc.)? Certainly, there are some types of city infrastructure that deteriorate less from usage and more so from exposure to the elements over time (telephone poles, bridges, drainage systems). It seems that increased housing density would increase the amount of tax dollars for a given area of land without necessarily increasing the need for more roads or roadway area. One might argue that higher housing density means more cars, but if doubling the number of cars doesn't half the lifespan of the roads, then it's a win. Also, double the housing density doesn't necessarily mean twice the cars, because higher density regions are generally more walkable and there are greater opportunities for carpooling/ride-sharing/public transit. So, basically, increase housing density so that more people are sharing established infrastructure. Fund the maintenance of this infrastructure using taxes that are population (or perhaps income) dependent, rather than property taxes. Oh, and based on the cost and longevity numbers provided in the article, why would anyone ever use asphalt over concrete for a roadway surface? I assume some key factor has been left out of this comparison.
- MagnumOpus 10y ago
  Pros of asphalt: - Upfront cost is lower - Cold-resistance: Preferred in cold climates as it’s less likely to crack and snow removal is easier. - Aesthetics: Because of its dark color it won’t show stains easily - Repair: Patching is easy as it can be repaired or re-layered and does not need to be replaced.
ranprieur 10y ago
I don't quite see his argument that this is a ponzi scheme. Wouldn't that mean, if a city stops growing, the whole thing collapses and the streets fall apart? It seems more like parasitism, where the urban core is burdened with supporting more and more suburbs, and stopping growth is a step toward stability.
cwalv 10y ago
It seems like the yearly cost calculation (19,146.11 /30 years = $638.20) ignores the time value of money. $19,146.11 30 years from now is only worth $5,778.22 today at 4%. The future value of 30 $378.49 yearly payments at 4%/yr is $21,227.59 .. The cost of resurfacing will probably rise proportional to inflation, so it will cost more to resurface in the future as well .. but couldn't the city invest the funds to get 3-4% over inflation? Also, the yearly tax payments will rise proportionally over time.
ezoe 10y ago
Interesting opinion. Americans built free road at the expense of their own future generations. The author think Americans must stop this spiral and paying the road cost by paying more tax or reduce economic activities by not building and maintaining the road. Paying more tax would not happens. The Citizen will flee to other states/countries for avoiding high tax(and that place gets free road). Reducing the economy doesn't work too. Your future generation unsatisfied the situation(lack of jobs, cultures etc) and flee to other more economically advanced cities/countries(and that place gets free road). Borrowing from the future generation is better.
caseysoftware 10y ago
Btw, what's your first pet's name? (now that we know the street you grew up on..)
intrasight 10y ago
I live in an established town. The municipal boundary is about eight square miles. Very few new developments so the author's math doesn't apply. Our roads are maintained by the "tar and chip" approach which is pretty automated. A truck which has both the tar sprayer and the chip spreader drives around town on a regular basis to resurface the roads. Our road has been resurfaced this way about every five years. The next town over has brick roads. They also need periodic maintenance, but it looks like the same bricks have been in place for a hundred years. I'm sure that in both cases our taxes ARE paying the cost of the streets.
dollar 10y ago
What's really illuminating about this article is that it reveals the myopic thinking of a statist. The only solutions proposed are a) increase taxes or b) change spending or c) reduce liabilities. Where is option d) reduce the cost of roads?
stretchwithme 10y ago
I don't think zoning and the other minimum requirements are the issue. It's the fact that the longterm costs of sprawl aren't going to be born by the individual, so the individual doesn't consider them. If the country decides to fight a war that adds another $5K in debt per citizen, most people are oblivious to that. But if they told you your share for the war will be an extra $100 a month for the next 5 years, you might pay more attention. By the way, the average taxpayer's share of the national debt is now $161K.

197 points by jtsnow 10y ago

mfoy_ 10y ago

Interesting article, and great visuals. The Sankey Diagram of the budget was very nice and of course all the interactive maps bear mentioning. I think that anecdote about the "free" parking structure was really telling. The federal government swooped in and built a bunch of parking space then left the lesser governments squabbling over whose responsibility it wasn't. More importantly, I think the best solution is to just pay more taxes. But "paying more taxes" seems to be antithetical to most Americans. It's like the American Dream has just become "having nice things and not paying for them".

x0x0 10y ago
I have to share one of my favorite anecdotes. CA colleges are, for a number of reasons (prop 13, etc), in perpetual budget crises. A mother with a daughter in a UC was interviewed on tv whining about the impact of budget cuts on her daughter's education. After about a minute of this moron whinging, the reporter asked if she would be willing to pay a couple hundred dollars per year more in tax if it were dedicated to the UC system. Given my description of her, you know the answer: Of course not! We're overtaxed! Most people are too stupid to understand that if we want nice things, we have to collectively pay for them. Though to be fair, there's plenty of politicians (see Republicans in Kansas, Louisiana, etc) telling people what they want to hear: tax cuts pay for themselves...
- mfoy_ 10y ago
  I'm not surprised at all that people would hold such contradictory views, simultaneously demanding tax cuts and service improvements, but it is surprising that someone could utter them in the same breath and keep a straight face. Maybe it's just a lack of self awareness?
  - beberlei 10y ago
    any government budget is just too big to get any feeling for this imho. And you can either always argue that its just spend on the wrong things, like military, espionage, social security or that others are not paying enough, like Apple only paying very little taxes because they hoard their money abroad.
    - Zikes 10y ago
      Yep, budget mismanagement and being underfunded are completely separate things. It's entirely possible that the "moron" woman interviewed believed that the budget was plenty, but being negligently mis-spent.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    I don't think people really understand where the money is going. I just looked at the numbers in the article, and I'm shocked that the upkeep of a little stretch of road in front of your house costs almost a thousand dollars a year. We just get used to that stuff being around and forget it costs money. People think that way about all infrastructure, actually. "They want to raise water rates? What for?! We already pay $36/month!" Nobody thinks about the cost of digging up streets, replacing worn pipes, upgrading treatment plants, etc.
  - rbritton 10y ago
    For some I'm sure it is, but I believe there's another facet to it: waste. A lot of tax revenue is totally wasted, and while some is almost certainly inevitable in an organization as large as the government, I strongly feel that no taxes should be raised or imposed until all reasonable avenues of reducing that have been pursued. For example, this should not be a thing: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08333.pdf http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08333.pdf
    - x0x0 10y ago
      By setting up conditions that will never be met, you're insisting that taxes never be raised. Which is fine, but just honestly advocate for that. Also, that pdf is singularly stupid. Look at the first page: they found waste of $77k in the DoD! In a budget approaching one TRILLION dollars. There's always going to be a couple percent of waste; that's life in any big organization, public or private. Even if their 50% waste is accurate -- hell, even if it's 100% waste -- they're discussing $15B in a $3T federal budget -- half a percent.
- akchin 10y ago
  This might be unpopular, but California is a great example of a place where taxes are high, but it is not spent well. I remember looking at this a few years back, and although the state claims that 2/3 of state tax dollars goes towards education, a lot of it is supporting pensions and benefits of previous generation employees and teachers. While this is admirable, it essentially takes money away from today's generation for unsustainable promises made by unions and political leaders in the 80s and 90s. CA already has one of the highest marginal tax rates in the US of 9.5%, so it is understandable the woman does not want to pay more. For schooling, Prop 13 is an even bigger issue. Even though property taxes are high for new buyers, schools are underfunded. Parents essentially are paying higher taxes in the form of fundraising to support science and other enrichment classes, which cannot be supported by the state. There were somewhat noble ideas behind Prop 13, but essentially what we have in California, is that newer residents of Californa bear a disproportionate amount of the burden.
  - x0x0 10y ago
    While I'm with you on prop 13, we combine high income taxes with exceptionally low property taxes for long term property holders. Again, if we want nice things, we have to pay for them. As for pensions, you say unsustainable promises, I say stealing from people who took cash later instead of cash immediately. Consider your last boss deciding to reach into your checking account and take $40k out because the business retroactively decided they overpaid. According to this http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2016CAbs_17bs2n_0002#usgs302 http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2016CAbs_1... pensions are 36.9/208.2 = 18% of the state budget.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      It's possible to be unhappy with underfunded pensions and also think it would be unfair to change them retroactively.
    - bradleyjg 10y ago
      The point is that the politicians back then stole from the future. If they were going to promise cash in the future the should have set aside money back then to pay for it. It's one thing when a government borrows money to pay for a capital project that will last long after they are out of office. The net present value of an accruing pension is an operating cost and should be paid for as the obligation is incurred.
- BurningFrog 10y ago
  This argument rests on the assumption that taxes are spent wisely and fairly.
- baddox 10y ago
  If you're wanting to be fair, you should also bring up the very real (and reasonable) possibility that this woman would rather existing tax revenue be spent on education than some of the things it is currently being spent on. There is nothing contradictory about feeling overtaxed and also feeling that insufficient tax revenue is being spent on education.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

cosmeen 10y ago

site seems down for me, use google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FtW484izsTQJ:mapstoryblog.thenittygritty.org/costofstreets/ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FtW484i...

clarkmoody 10y ago

First and foremost, we need to abolish the laws that caused this all to happen. Yes, that’s right – all of this was required to happen, by law. Many people think that sprawl is a free market phenomenon, and they are exactly wrong. Sprawl is caused by the following policies – I call these Sprawl Laws; you can find them for yourself in your local city code (for the most succinct explanation, see this paper[1]): * Zoning * Setbacks * Minimum parking requirements * Minimum lot sizes * Maximum units per lot * Minimum road widths Add school district zoning into the mix, and you have the full recipe for where our cities are today. [1] http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1434&context=scholarlyworks http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...

avar 10y ago
Very pertinent previous HN discussion about the difference between Japanese and US zoning: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8540845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8540845
rayiner 10y ago
It's interesting that some of the most charming neighborhoods in the country (e.g. Chelsea in New York, DuPont in D.C.) were built before all that crap. You'd never build a "modern city" like Philadelphia, with its narrow one-way streets, lack of parking, and commercial and retail mish-mashed together. But most of the rest of the country feels dead in comparison.
- BurningFrog 10y ago
  Make that the world. At least in Stockholm all the most desirable locations would be illegal to build today for dozens of reasons. Meanwhile, newly built areas range from awful to tolerable.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    > You'd never build a "modern city" like Philadelphia, with its narrow one-way streets, lack of parking, and commercial and retail mish-mashed together. And yet, that’s what’s being built in most of europe. Make streets smaller, remove parking, build mixed use buildings. [1] http://www.kn-online.de/var/storage/images/kn/news/nachrichten-aus-kiel/bauherren-preis-2015-gestaltungswille-auf-engstem-raum/396565854-1-ger-DE/Gestaltungswille-auf-engstem-Raum_gallerylarge.jpg http://www.kn-online.de/var/storage/images/kn/news/nachricht... [2] http://abload.de/img/img_1863whsfj.jpg http://abload.de/img/img_1863whsfj.jpg [3] http://www.schlossquartier-kiel.de/fileadmin/images/01.jpg http://www.schlossquartier-kiel.de/fileadmin/images/01.jpg Be it one-lane roads, be it building mixed use buildings, etc – these projects are all either built this year, or still under construction. It’s not a global issue, definitely more of a US issue.

maxsilver 10y ago

There's this assumption that are $15-$18 per square foot. I'm no expert here, but I think that number might be roughly double what cities actually pay, based on this document from the State of Michigan : https://www.michigan.gov/documents/Vol2-40UIP16SubDevCosts-YardCosts-Demolition_121083_7.pdf https://www.michigan.gov/documents/Vol2-40UIP16SubDevCosts-Y... It's a decade old, but I'm seeing only $8/square foot cost, not $15+. Using the rest of the authors map + numbers, the majority of properties are now actually covering their street costs, with some room to spare for extras (such as curbs, sewers, sidewalks, etc, which suburban sprawl-type streets typically don't have). Of course, Michigan roads are infamous for being terrible -- this might be the reason. It might also be worth considering that a lot of high-end sprawl costs the city nothing in maintenance for their roads, since they are privately paved / plowed / maintained by HOAs.

maxerickson 10y ago
How are you arriving at $8? The footnote on page 2 puts it maybe close to that at minimum just for the construction (the article is including 30 years of maintenance).
- maxsilver 10y ago
  I'm not including water mains, electricity, and gas mains. (Since they aren't really part of the street -- they generate their own revenue through usage charges + other taxes). Here's another person also arriving at roughly $8/sqft in California : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11640167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11640167
ffumarola 10y ago
CPI from 2003 to 2016 would bring that $8 up to $10.35, FWIW. And then, as you mentioned, road quality may come in to play. As would labor costs and other factors.
- fraserharris 10y ago
  And that doesn't incorporate the government administration cost, which the author's number includes (by taking the actual city budget).

jdavis703 10y ago

Based on the amount of potholes and cracks on the streets bounding my apartment, I'm almost certain that we (me) aren't paying for the street to be maintained.

bagels 10y ago

I don't know why the author only does an analysis of just property taxes contributing to road maintenance. Most people in the US are contributing additional taxes in the form of: * Gasoline taxes * State and local sales taxes * State and federal income taxes Those taxes are available to build and maintain infrastructure as well. Whether they are [used for that purpose] or not is a different question. I know that I am contributing more than enough taxes to maintain the small patch of road in front of where I live by the author's cost analysis.

emodendroket 10y ago
I don't know what other towns or states look like but from what I can see all those sources are already stretched pretty thin.
ItsDeathball 10y ago
It's mentioned in the article that this is about local, city-maintained streets. Unless you live directly on a state or federal highway, those gas taxes, state sales taxes, and income taxes do not go towards the street you live one. Local sales taxes may, and the author includes these in the diagram of the city budget. Your largest contribution to the maintenance of city infrastructure is in property taxes, either directly or through rent. It's also worth noting that the article only accounts for road surface maintenance. Adding in sewage and water expenses would likely not be favorable.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  A Google search for "federal street construction grant" indicates otherwise. There's lots of results discussing such grants.
- Agustus 10y ago
  Gas taxes go to federal, state, and local (county level).
- bagels 10y ago
  I would assume that a lot of people on HN pay more state income & sales taxes than property taxes through rent.

jsprogrammer 10y ago

The analysis seems to include the material and labor costs of building the street. Most peoples' street was already built by the time it became theirs, so, of course their taxes didn't pay for any of the substantial costs that were previously laid out. Moreover, looking at only a single year's budget would not represent the years with large expenditures on streets, or take into account increased, future amortized payments to cover costs. Ultimately, we can know that this particular article is invalid because it is representing "long-term costs estimated by unnamed civil engineer as a global average" as "the actual costs of the streets in my city", and "the actual costs of the streets in my city" for "all my city wants to bill me for my streets, even though they actually cost a lot more". Further, the article never explains who actually paid the costs, nor how this all relates to a claimed Growth Ponzi Scheme, or even evidence of property taxes halving...ever.

jsprogrammer 10y ago
Oh, wow, did no one read the article?

fiatjaf 10y ago

What do you mean by "for streets"? What about the rest of the taxes, not tied to any specific public service?

fiatjaf 10y ago

See also: http://andrewalexanderprice.com/blog.php http://andrewalexanderprice.com/blog.php for lots of pictures.

massysett 10y ago

The author never made the case that a property owner is SUPPOSED to pay for the cost of the street, so I'm not even motivated to figure out whether the analysis is correct or not. The government is not a bank. You're not supposed to "get out what you put in" or "pay for what you use." The government provides things for the public good: roads, education, police, military, etc. Of course some government is a Ponzi scheme in the sense that some people "pay for more than they use." That's called progressive taxation. So if the evil sprawlsters are subsidizing the older roads...so what? The evil sprawlsters can afford it. It would be just as ridiculous to write an article about how "people with children in schools aren't paying the cost of the school" or good grief even "people who have a fire aren't paying the cost of the fire department." Roads are provided for the public good. So it really doesn't matter that the author doesn't even address the fact that many of these supposedly deadbeat property owners are paying a whole bunch of taxes that are keeping the city of Ames afloat, along with its supposedly inaccurate road tax scheme.

x0x0 10y ago
The point, as I read it, is this only works as long as there is enough growth to pay for upkeep of older infrastructure. The second the growth slows, or even stops, there's trouble. And nobody is arguing you should only get out what you put in, but on average, if property taxes are barely high enough to pay for the street in front of that house, it's obvious there will be a problem.
dionidium 10y ago
So if the evil sprawlsters are subsidizing the older roads...so what? The evil sprawlsters can afford it. I think you (and probably the author) have got this exactly backwards. Sprawl creates blight when the rate of building outpaces the needs of population growth. The evil sprawlsters are creating new costs, but they aren't subsidizing old roads. The sprawl usually happens outside of long-ago drawn city borders, anyway. If you have 5 families living in 5 houses in the urban core and you build 5 new houses for them to live in out in the suburbs, then population needs to double for there to be full occupancy. As a case study, take a look at my home town of St. Louis. Much has been made about the city's population loss. But that's just in the urban core; the region's population has actually grown slightly over the last 40 years. It just hasn't grown fast enough to fill up all the new houses we've built out across the river. The sprawlsters aren't subsidizing the old roads. They have completely abandoned them and are leaving them to nature.

warfangle 10y ago

Don't most streets with houses on them have houses on both sides of the street? In which case if two houses are each paying 60% the cost of the street on their frontage, isn't there a 20% overage?

maxerickson 10y ago
The calculation shown has a width/2 in it.
- gefh 10y ago
  Good eye, I missed that.
  - largote 10y ago
    I missed it too and I came to the comments to complain about it, I guess the author didn't make it very clear.

HighPlainsDrftr 10y ago

I've always wondered why we pave our streets to begin with. Yes, I know that dirt and gravel kick up alot of dust, but the expense of the street itself seems a bit extreme as well. I can't think of how many times I've seen a new street go in, and just a few weeks later they cut it up and dig up a water line to replace it. There has to be a better material besides concrete or asphalt that would provide similar benefits. The other part, while I don't know how you would get around it, seems to be the fact that my car tires are about 10" wide (20" combined). The street in front of my house is 80' wide. Thats an awful lot of space not being used.

machrider 10y ago
For one thing, you can safely go a lot faster on asphalt than on dirt while still being able to round corners and come to a stop.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  If you draw a distinction between streets (~access) and roads (~transport) that isn't really a good reason. People around here drive too fast on streets as it is.
stellar678 10y ago
I'm sure there are some road users this wouldn't work for, but check out permeable interlocking pavers. I encountered some country roads in Germany that were paved with these for many kilometers. It was a beautiful and pleasant place to ride.
- xyzzyz 10y ago
  These wear pretty quickly upon use.
massysett 10y ago
"I've always wondered why we pave our streets to begin with." Dramatic reduction in particulate air pollution. There have been programs to reduce air pollution in towns along the US - Mexico border. Folks on the US side paid to have roads paved in Mexico so it would reduce pollution--it was cheaper than taking incremental steps on the US side.

theanomaly 10y ago

I'm confused It’s simple – here’s how it works: Say a community is built in Year 1. The community’s streets need to be rebuilt every 30 years. In Year 30 a new, identical community is built. Now twice the amount of taxes are coming, and so for time being the property owners only need to pay half the amount. And 30 years later, in Year 60, two new communities are built; as long as the number of properties and property taxes are doubling every 30 years, they can continue to pay half the amount. Year 1, one community (community A), over the next 30 years is going to pay for 1 community's worth of roads (call it a 30 year loan given on day 1, let's say 1M dollars). So, the cost for community A is 1M dollars for 30 community-years of roads. Year 30, we add a new community B to the mix. This community needs its own roads, so it needs a loan for 1M dollars it will pay off over the next 30 years. However, community A's roads have worn out. Community A just finished paying off their first loan, so they'll need a new one. At year 60, we have paid 3M dollars, and gotten 90 "community-years" of roads out of it. This is no different than the equivalent end of the first year with one community, one loan, and 30 "community-years" of roads. What am i missing from this example?

aaronbwebber 10y ago
Community A doesn't take out a loan. The roads were built with exogenous funds. Starting in 30 years, Community A has to start paying X dollars a year in maintenance on it's roads. Community A taxes itself $X/2 per year and pays for a fire department with it. In Year 30, Community B is built with exogenous funds. Starting in 30 years, Community B has to start paying $X a year in maintenance on it's roads. Community A has to raise taxes to $X, half of which goes to maintenance on it's roads and half of which goes to A's fire department, and Community B starts paying $X in taxes every year, half of which goes to maintenance on A's roads and half of which goes to B's fire department. In Year 60, Community A and Community B each have to come up with an additional $X/2 per year in taxes or cut their fire departments.
mabbo 10y ago
Infrastructure is expensive to replace. These towns and cities are only able to afford to do so by making new subdivisions pay for it. This works so long as you keep growing exponentially, forever, which you won't. Someday, there won't be new people to pay for it.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

gnicholas 10y ago

The cost estimates for road construction the author uses are probably roughly the same across the country. Property taxes, on the other hand, vary widely. So at most, he's proving that in Iowa—where property prices are relatively low—there may be an imbalance. But this tells us very little about whether there is a widespread problem. Go to a higher cost of living area, or an area with higher population density, and the math looks very different.

elchief 10y ago

Driverless cars solve this problem pretty soon The end result is going to be about ~80% fewer cars in existence.

bduerst 10y ago
Why? Drivers or not, cars still need roads to reach locations.
- largote 10y ago
  But you can have streets which are far narrower as driverless cars can coordinate on how to make it work well.
- startling 10y ago
  Presumably, fewer cars means less road repair necessary.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    I'd assume it was miles, not cars, that would govern. 1 car driven 20 miles causes as much wear as 2 cars driven 10 miles each. Driverless cars may increase total miles driven, by making driving more convenient and shared cars (which many driverless cars would become) increase miles by adding "deadhead" miles to reposition between dropoff X-1 and pickup X.
- elchief 10y ago
  Ya, but they don't need a lane everywhere to park if there's 80% fewer of them

cletus 10y ago

I wonder if at some point we'll look back at the 20th century for what it was: a complete disaster of urban planning as sacrifice to the Church of the Car. I live in NYC. It still befuddles me when I see people driving around Manhattan (why??). On a Saturday you can see traffic backed up half a mile to get to the Holland Tunnel. How was any of this not entirely foreseeable? Why do people endure it? Anyway I discussed with someone how much space is allocated to free or highly subsidized parking. The going rate for land in Manhattan is >$600/sq ft now. Back-of-the-envelope estimates of the land dedicated to parking below 125th street puts the value of these parking spots at around $2 billion. A parking spot in prime real estate would be close to $100k. It's maintained by the city, chokes traffic and is given away for free (in a lot of cases). Why doesn't it generate revenues of $10k/year or roughly $30/day at the very minimum? In most parts of the US living without a car is nigh-on-impossible. The dismantling of streetcars is many cities at the behest of the auto industry has been well-covered. Something else I find interesting: the gun debate is contentious. Some argue guns make crime more likely. Others argue it's people not guns that are the problem. Why isn't there this same debate about cars? I don't think they're inherently bad but you have to consider that the car made a lot of crimes possible that previously weren't (or at least weren't practical). Kidnappings, serial killings, bank robberies, burglaries, smuggling (eg cigarettes/alcohol across state lines) often feature a car or truck as a necessary component of the crime. When people talk about crime getting worse over time, how much of this can be correlated with the ease and propensity of car ownership? Anyway, as for urban planning, it's amazing how much people expect the city, state and Federal governments to subsidize their lifestyle choices with infrastructure like roads, sewer lines, water and the like. Rarely do these developments pay for their own infrastructure (it's at least subsidized to some degree). How quickly society changes to where car ownership and all the infrastructure required became viewed as some God given right.

ars 10y ago
> I wonder if at some point we'll look back at the 20th century for what it was: a complete disaster of urban planning as sacrifice to the Church of the Car. Never, that's when. Some people (not you) actually like to have the space to live in. So you need a car. The goal is not the car, the goal is space. It's not a disaster at all, it's a breath of fresh air, having space. > I live in NYC. You do that, and I'll stay far away from that place. I've been there, I would absolutely loath to live there. > ....gun....car....crime You have got to be kidding. The crime rate in cities is much higher, if anything cars reduce crime.

williesleg 10y ago

I'll let you in on a little secret. You see, anyone can make a donation to the US Treasury, or their local city, town, state or county. Those that feel they aren't paying enough can freely donate more. But you know what? They won't. It's just a scam. They want more money from us, and they'll waste it just like they're wasting existing cash. Look at the retirement benefits for people in your community. Here in NY, we have teachers and administrators who have retired from schools and school districts clearing over $500,000 per YEAR in retirement! WTF!!! That's the scam we're all dealing with.

JoblessWonder 10y ago

I think there are a few problems with the math but the largest seems to be his costs seem out of whack. Creating a new road is more expensive than any maintenance/entire repaving since it shouldn't need to be re-graded/piped/utilities dealt with/etc. Sunnyvale in California quotes a variety of prices for street maintenance up to reconstruction and none are over $7/sq foot.[1] And this is in California where constructions costs are usually high compared to the rest of the nation. [1] http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Departments/PublicWork/StreetMaintenance/StreetMaintenanceProcesses.aspx http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Departments/PublicWork/StreetMainten...

bbarn 10y ago

As a cyclist, I get a lot of reasons I shouldn't be on the road thrown at me from people with uneducated opinions, but this one - this misconception right here that driving pays for roads, is the only one that makes my blood boil. I think if more people understood what actually pays for the roads it would cut down on the sense of entitled driving so many seem to have in general.

kspaans 10y ago
The UK has a campaign dedicated to this: http://ipayroadtax.com/ http://ipayroadtax.com/ Admittedly it's more due to the UK's peculiar form of taxation (in a netshell: occupiers of houses pay "council tax" rather than owners paying "property tax"). But the website is a little dated, I hear they re-instated a ring-fenced sales tax on cars that will go towards road development.

stevep001 10y ago

City policies on this vary so much that it's impossible to generalize. That said, newer cities often end up forgetting that they need to pay for street reconstruction. The original cost of the street is usually included in the initial price of the house. Sophisticated cities maintain a model (commonly called a pavement management program) that lets them predict future maintenance cost across the city. He misses the fact that Ames does get tax money for street maintenance [1] and reconstruction [2]. His estimate for a properly maintained street is quite low -- other Midwestern US cities are able to get 60-70 years from their streets. He also misses out on special assessments as a source of revenue -- which is very common for residential street projects. [1] http://www.cityofames.org/home/showdocument?id=22486 http://www.cityofames.org/home/showdocument?id=22486 page 178 shows state taxes as a revenue source [2] http://www.cityofames.org/home/showdocument?id=8045 http://www.cityofames.org/home/showdocument?id=8045 page 91/92 shows a variety of sources, including state taxes

kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
>other Midwestern US cities are able to get 60-70 years from their streets. By neglecting them when they are horribly cracked and potholed after 25 years. Then they make up for their long term "investment" in concrete by skim coating with asphalt.
- stevep001 10y ago
  Or by applying maintenance at the right time to keep streets in good condition -- see, for example, the chart here: https://www.bloomingtonmn.gov/sites/default/files/media/PMP-brochure.pdf https://www.bloomingtonmn.gov/sites/default/files/media/PMP-... If you're curious about your city, key question to ask is whether they have a pavement condition database. If they don't, they have no idea what the right amount of maintenance is. If they do, they should be able to predict whether they are spending at the right rate, and predict the same for the next several years.

fhrjfjc 10y ago

So how's that war against "sprawl" working out for San Francisco? Oh right...

codingdave 10y ago

I can only speak for my own city, but the cost of building out new roads and infrastructure for new development is paid for not by property taxes, but by the building permits for the development. They actually just had a city council meeting outlining the expected growth over the next 5 years, its expected cost, and the resulting fees for building various types of residential and commercial development. So the article is correct, that property taxes do not pay for it all. But that is not the only source of revenue.

andys627 10y ago
Who pays in 30 years when it needs to be repaved?

Wile_E_Quixote 10y ago

I'm guessing this partially depends on region, and is of course partially dependent on both, but what is the primary factor limiting the lifespan of road surfaces: usage or weather (rain, snow, winter salt, etc.)? Certainly, there are some types of city infrastructure that deteriorate less from usage and more so from exposure to the elements over time (telephone poles, bridges, drainage systems). It seems that increased housing density would increase the amount of tax dollars for a given area of land without necessarily increasing the need for more roads or roadway area. One might argue that higher housing density means more cars, but if doubling the number of cars doesn't half the lifespan of the roads, then it's a win. Also, double the housing density doesn't necessarily mean twice the cars, because higher density regions are generally more walkable and there are greater opportunities for carpooling/ride-sharing/public transit. So, basically, increase housing density so that more people are sharing established infrastructure. Fund the maintenance of this infrastructure using taxes that are population (or perhaps income) dependent, rather than property taxes. Oh, and based on the cost and longevity numbers provided in the article, why would anyone ever use asphalt over concrete for a roadway surface? I assume some key factor has been left out of this comparison.

MagnumOpus 10y ago
Pros of asphalt: - Upfront cost is lower - Cold-resistance: Preferred in cold climates as it’s less likely to crack and snow removal is easier. - Aesthetics: Because of its dark color it won’t show stains easily - Repair: Patching is easy as it can be repaired or re-layered and does not need to be replaced.

ranprieur 10y ago

I don't quite see his argument that this is a ponzi scheme. Wouldn't that mean, if a city stops growing, the whole thing collapses and the streets fall apart? It seems more like parasitism, where the urban core is burdened with supporting more and more suburbs, and stopping growth is a step toward stability.

cwalv 10y ago

It seems like the yearly cost calculation (19,146.11 /30 years = $638.20) ignores the time value of money. $19,146.11 30 years from now is only worth $5,778.22 today at 4%. The future value of 30 $378.49 yearly payments at 4%/yr is $21,227.59 .. The cost of resurfacing will probably rise proportional to inflation, so it will cost more to resurface in the future as well .. but couldn't the city invest the funds to get 3-4% over inflation? Also, the yearly tax payments will rise proportionally over time.

ezoe 10y ago

Interesting opinion. Americans built free road at the expense of their own future generations. The author think Americans must stop this spiral and paying the road cost by paying more tax or reduce economic activities by not building and maintaining the road. Paying more tax would not happens. The Citizen will flee to other states/countries for avoiding high tax(and that place gets free road). Reducing the economy doesn't work too. Your future generation unsatisfied the situation(lack of jobs, cultures etc) and flee to other more economically advanced cities/countries(and that place gets free road). Borrowing from the future generation is better.

caseysoftware 10y ago

Btw, what's your first pet's name? (now that we know the street you grew up on..)

intrasight 10y ago

I live in an established town. The municipal boundary is about eight square miles. Very few new developments so the author's math doesn't apply. Our roads are maintained by the "tar and chip" approach which is pretty automated. A truck which has both the tar sprayer and the chip spreader drives around town on a regular basis to resurface the roads. Our road has been resurfaced this way about every five years. The next town over has brick roads. They also need periodic maintenance, but it looks like the same bricks have been in place for a hundred years. I'm sure that in both cases our taxes ARE paying the cost of the streets.

dollar 10y ago

What's really illuminating about this article is that it reveals the myopic thinking of a statist. The only solutions proposed are a) increase taxes or b) change spending or c) reduce liabilities. Where is option d) reduce the cost of roads?

stretchwithme 10y ago

I don't think zoning and the other minimum requirements are the issue. It's the fact that the longterm costs of sprawl aren't going to be born by the individual, so the individual doesn't consider them. If the country decides to fight a war that adds another $5K in debt per citizen, most people are oblivious to that. But if they told you your share for the war will be an extra $100 a month for the next 5 years, you might pay more attention. By the way, the average taxpayer's share of the national debt is now $161K.