9 ms·

I have a couple issues with your post. First up, you seem to be conflating the source of infrastructures funding (state vs city) in an area with whether the po

by foota 10y ago

I have a couple issues with your post. First up, you seem to be conflating the source of infrastructures funding (state vs city) in an area with whether the population of that area could without external funding pay for their infrastructure. And secondly, while maintaining buried infrastructure in the city is likely more expensive, your argument presents no claim that it is more expensive _per capita_. edit: see http://usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/03/Halifax-data.pdf http://usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/0... for some numbers on the last point

Spooky23 10y ago
Sustainability of infrastructure is all about the funding stream. I'm an IT Director guy with a healthy six figure salary. It's sustainable for me to spend too weeks on the beach every year. If I made $50k and had a $2000/mo mortgage, that would not be sustainable. In my city, a tax/ratepayer base of 100,000 people bear the burden of supporting hundreds of miles of streets and other infrastructure. Guess what? They cannot afford it. 1 mile away, most of those costs are supported by 20 million state taxpayers. This is precisely the same as the problem with schools. My City School District is struggling to get funding to cover basic services because they have to deal with a larger, poorer and sicker student body. That district one mile away is debating whether or not they should have a full size Olympic swimming pool or not. No poor folk, fewer disabled kids who need expensive intervention and a larger tax base.
- baursak 10y ago
  I'm not sure what your argument is. The original point was that rural and suburban infrastructure maintenance is more expensive per capita than urban infra maintenance. The fact that urban centers are paying for maintenance of suburban and rural infrastructure on top of their own maintenance only further makes that same point.

by foota 10y ago

Spooky23 10y ago

Sustainability of infrastructure is all about the funding stream. I'm an IT Director guy with a healthy six figure salary. It's sustainable for me to spend too weeks on the beach every year. If I made $50k and had a $2000/mo mortgage, that would not be sustainable. In my city, a tax/ratepayer base of 100,000 people bear the burden of supporting hundreds of miles of streets and other infrastructure. Guess what? They cannot afford it. 1 mile away, most of those costs are supported by 20 million state taxpayers. This is precisely the same as the problem with schools. My City School District is struggling to get funding to cover basic services because they have to deal with a larger, poorer and sicker student body. That district one mile away is debating whether or not they should have a full size Olympic swimming pool or not. No poor folk, fewer disabled kids who need expensive intervention and a larger tax base.

baursak 10y ago
I'm not sure what your argument is. The original point was that rural and suburban infrastructure maintenance is more expensive per capita than urban infra maintenance. The fact that urban centers are paying for maintenance of suburban and rural infrastructure on top of their own maintenance only further makes that same point.