12 ms·

Somehow we afford paving streets in cities. I wonder how that happens when the math is always so bad? Perhaps it's because we socialize the cost since the pav

Somehow we afford paving streets in cities. I wonder how that happens when the math is always so bad? Perhaps it's because we socialize the cost since the paved road benefits more than the immediate houses on that block.

civilian 6y ago
"Somehow we afford paving streets in cities" There's two explanations: 1. Previously, the streets were simply pavement and a ditch. Now they're being upgraded to pavement-sidewalk-internaldrainage-internet-power. It's more expensive and potentially unsustainable. 2. We can't afford it, b/c we're relying on all of these bonds. If _every_ block in the city requires a bond that the property tax from that block can't pay, eventually the banks will recognize that this city isn't a good debitor. But furthermore, is this the best use of funds? Is adding a sidewalk worth 1.5m, when it could be spent elsewhere?
- inetknght 6y ago
  Or a third explanation as @frisco's comment [0] suggests; the price tag is bloated [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23566731 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23566731
cagenut 6y ago
thats true in many scenarios but basically untrue in cul-de-sac style designed communities.
jariel 6y ago
So the people living in small, dense dwelling and apartments can foot the bill for the nice roads of the folks with big properties ... I wonder how the dynamic would change if all 'access roads' i.e. roads with homes on them, and not 'artery roads' had to be paid for by the local neighborhood.
- burlesona 6y ago
  This has been considered. For example, Virginia greatly restricted cul-de-sacs[1], and my understanding is that the mechanism by which they accomplished this is changing the rules so that only "through streets" would be eligible for public maintenance going forward, hence if you had a cul-de-sac or private loop road or something you had to maintain it yourself. But I think that's only forward-looking, it doesn't change things for all the private roadways built in the past. 1: https://www.planetizen.com/node/37942 https://www.planetizen.com/node/37942
  - xxpor 6y ago
    The way VA does road maintenance is wildly different than nearly every other state though. Every road outside of independent cities is state maintained. Not county or town, but full state maintenance. It makes it much easier to do these types of changes.
burlesona 6y ago
There are a number of factors, but the simplest gist: 1. The models for road funding and development were developed in the 1920s and 30s, were based on much denser areas (old towns) that paid a lot higher taxes per acre, and much simpler roads (which cost a lot less). 2. The models haven't been significantly updated or reconsidered since, even though the development patterns have been mandated by law to become much less dense, while street standards have also greatly increased, meaning much less tax base to support much more infrastructure. 3. This often pencils out in places that are growing because there are heavy state and federal subsides for "growth" projects where the up front capital cost is 80-100% paid for by non-local funds. That infrastructure works without maintenance for a while, and likely won't need heavy maintenance for 20-30 years, but at that point it'll need to be rebuilt at about the same cost adjusted for inflation as it cost to build. In theory what should be happening is cities should be piling up money from taxes on these projects that were subsidized, so that when the maintenance bill comes due they have the funds to do the maintenance. But in practice, the taxes that come in from "today's" new growth are used to pay for the maintenance on "yesterdays" old infrastructure that needs to be replaced. Thus, things appear to "work" as long as steady growth continues and new tax income continues to be generated locally while the costs associated are funded from outside. But when growth slows down or stops, things quickly break down. You can see this pattern of "rolling blight" all over the country, where so many of the older suburbs are falling apart with decaying infrastructure, and people who can are moving farther out to the "shiny and new" suburbs where everything is in good shape. The problem is especially pernicious in the rust belt, where we have seen metro areas dramatically expand in surface area every decade even as their population has barely increased (or shrunk) since the 1950s.
- ssivark 6y ago
  > The models haven't been significantly updated or reconsidered since, even though the development patterns have been mandated by law to become much less dense, while street standards have also greatly increased, meaning much less tax base to support much more infrastructure. This sounds like the utter lack of critical thinking which might result in a failing grade for a college term paper, so what gives? As in, what is the thinking with which sane people could justify using such models and/or approving estimates?
jkingsbery 6y ago
It's worth reading the Strong Towns book that goes into this in more detail. We haven't always afforded paving streets in cities. Many cities started with dirt roads in a small settlement. As the settlement grows, the investment in roads (sometimes) begins to make sense. As that investment happens, you can see over time an increase in the quality of buildings and population density. Perhaps you still disagree with it, but the point is that towns routinely make infrastructure improvements for which there is no cost socialization that makes the improvement worthwhile over the improvement's lifetime. You're right to suggest there is some benefit. In the example from the article, however, another street is used as the through street, so the benefit to people in other parts of the town from this road being improved is vanishingly small. It would not be worth however much their taxes would go up. You can also socialize across time through borrowing money, but in this case you would get 30 years worth of road for 35 years worth of money. It's an interesting book, because it does not even suggest that socialized costs or central government planning are bad in themselves, only that the way we're socializing costs is setting up our towns for bankruptcy.
PeterisP 6y ago
Density matters. How many people need that road, i.e. how many people live on these 0.3 miles of road? It's not a through route, so it does not benefit much more people than that. How many people live on 0.3 miles of city streets lined with multi-story buildings? That makes all the difference in how the math works out.

civilian 6y ago

"Somehow we afford paving streets in cities" There's two explanations: 1. Previously, the streets were simply pavement and a ditch. Now they're being upgraded to pavement-sidewalk-internaldrainage-internet-power. It's more expensive and potentially unsustainable. 2. We can't afford it, b/c we're relying on all of these bonds. If _every_ block in the city requires a bond that the property tax from that block can't pay, eventually the banks will recognize that this city isn't a good debitor. But furthermore, is this the best use of funds? Is adding a sidewalk worth 1.5m, when it could be spent elsewhere?

inetknght 6y ago
Or a third explanation as @frisco's comment [0] suggests; the price tag is bloated [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23566731 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23566731

cagenut 6y ago

thats true in many scenarios but basically untrue in cul-de-sac style designed communities.

jariel 6y ago

So the people living in small, dense dwelling and apartments can foot the bill for the nice roads of the folks with big properties ... I wonder how the dynamic would change if all 'access roads' i.e. roads with homes on them, and not 'artery roads' had to be paid for by the local neighborhood.

burlesona 6y ago
This has been considered. For example, Virginia greatly restricted cul-de-sacs[1], and my understanding is that the mechanism by which they accomplished this is changing the rules so that only "through streets" would be eligible for public maintenance going forward, hence if you had a cul-de-sac or private loop road or something you had to maintain it yourself. But I think that's only forward-looking, it doesn't change things for all the private roadways built in the past. 1: https://www.planetizen.com/node/37942 https://www.planetizen.com/node/37942
- xxpor 6y ago
  The way VA does road maintenance is wildly different than nearly every other state though. Every road outside of independent cities is state maintained. Not county or town, but full state maintenance. It makes it much easier to do these types of changes.

burlesona 6y ago

There are a number of factors, but the simplest gist: 1. The models for road funding and development were developed in the 1920s and 30s, were based on much denser areas (old towns) that paid a lot higher taxes per acre, and much simpler roads (which cost a lot less). 2. The models haven't been significantly updated or reconsidered since, even though the development patterns have been mandated by law to become much less dense, while street standards have also greatly increased, meaning much less tax base to support much more infrastructure. 3. This often pencils out in places that are growing because there are heavy state and federal subsides for "growth" projects where the up front capital cost is 80-100% paid for by non-local funds. That infrastructure works without maintenance for a while, and likely won't need heavy maintenance for 20-30 years, but at that point it'll need to be rebuilt at about the same cost adjusted for inflation as it cost to build. In theory what should be happening is cities should be piling up money from taxes on these projects that were subsidized, so that when the maintenance bill comes due they have the funds to do the maintenance. But in practice, the taxes that come in from "today's" new growth are used to pay for the maintenance on "yesterdays" old infrastructure that needs to be replaced. Thus, things appear to "work" as long as steady growth continues and new tax income continues to be generated locally while the costs associated are funded from outside. But when growth slows down or stops, things quickly break down. You can see this pattern of "rolling blight" all over the country, where so many of the older suburbs are falling apart with decaying infrastructure, and people who can are moving farther out to the "shiny and new" suburbs where everything is in good shape. The problem is especially pernicious in the rust belt, where we have seen metro areas dramatically expand in surface area every decade even as their population has barely increased (or shrunk) since the 1950s.

ssivark 6y ago
> The models haven't been significantly updated or reconsidered since, even though the development patterns have been mandated by law to become much less dense, while street standards have also greatly increased, meaning much less tax base to support much more infrastructure. This sounds like the utter lack of critical thinking which might result in a failing grade for a college term paper, so what gives? As in, what is the thinking with which sane people could justify using such models and/or approving estimates?

jkingsbery 6y ago

It's worth reading the Strong Towns book that goes into this in more detail. We haven't always afforded paving streets in cities. Many cities started with dirt roads in a small settlement. As the settlement grows, the investment in roads (sometimes) begins to make sense. As that investment happens, you can see over time an increase in the quality of buildings and population density. Perhaps you still disagree with it, but the point is that towns routinely make infrastructure improvements for which there is no cost socialization that makes the improvement worthwhile over the improvement's lifetime. You're right to suggest there is some benefit. In the example from the article, however, another street is used as the through street, so the benefit to people in other parts of the town from this road being improved is vanishingly small. It would not be worth however much their taxes would go up. You can also socialize across time through borrowing money, but in this case you would get 30 years worth of road for 35 years worth of money. It's an interesting book, because it does not even suggest that socialized costs or central government planning are bad in themselves, only that the way we're socializing costs is setting up our towns for bankruptcy.

PeterisP 6y ago

Density matters. How many people need that road, i.e. how many people live on these 0.3 miles of road? It's not a through route, so it does not benefit much more people than that. How many people live on 0.3 miles of city streets lined with multi-story buildings? That makes all the difference in how the math works out.