7 ms·

> For all of the ink Strong towns spills they can't point to one municipality that's gone broke from infrastructure costs. Ah, that's a bit of editorializing o

by flaque 5y ago

> For all of the ink Strong towns spills they can't point to one municipality that's gone broke from infrastructure costs. Ah, that's a bit of editorializing on my part. "Losing money" is probably more accurate than "going broke". That said, Strong Towns has plenty of case studies of different places, to varying degrees, losing quite a bit of money this way: - Spokane: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/10/24/dispatches-from-spokane-living-a-soft-default https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/10/24/dispatches-fr... - Kanas City: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/5/kansas-citys-fateful-suburban-experiment https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/5/kansas-citys-fa... - Cobb County: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/3/cobb-county-addicted-to-growth https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/3/cobb-county-add... - Collin County: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/9/27/a-texas-sized-pavement-problem https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/9/27/a-texas-sized-... - Baxter: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/1/18/the-classic-case-arp6t https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/1/18/the-classic-ca...

treis 5y ago
I've read various reports from them and I've not seen numbers that stand up. I'm not going to go through 5 more of them in detail to find the same thing. If any of them have actual numbers showing infrastructure eating up say 30% of the budget id be happy to look. But I can all but guarantee that they'll be the same story. Infrastructure at 10% or less with criminal justice, fire, and schools eating up the money.
- ggm 5y ago
  That infrastructure spend is too low. Steel and Concrete and buried utilities have a life. Many of the towns are up for significant capital investment beyond 10% maintenance. The spend is on 50s, 60s and 70s capex. It's getting old. Surely, on the risk side the estimated repair and replacement costs for bridges alone could drive a truck through this?
  - brutusborn 5y ago
    What is your basis for saying 10% is too low? I'm not suggesting that you are wrong, I just want to figure out how you would determine if the spend is too high or too low for any given town.
    - okdjnfweonfe 5y ago
      the potholes continued existence is probably an aspect
      - ggm 5y ago
        The delayed capital works. If 10% is normal, off the back of the Eisenhower era spend, the JFK spend, the LBJ spend on infrastructure, then capital works budgets have been lick-of-paint since. They're overdue for significant re investment. The federal capital works improvement spending proposed as recovery intervention identifies 100 major bridges nationally, and another 10,000 worth investing in.[1] Since then 10% can't stop, the likely spend has to be more. It's that simple. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
      - brutusborn 5y ago
        Your reply is useless, but I'll rephrase to clarify anyway: how would one determine what percentage is appropriate for planning long term? I.e. so that I don't see potholes in 10 years, would I need 12% or 18% or 44% or <>% ? What factors would this depend on? E.g. is it always above 10% or only if the town has a very low density?
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- Marazan 5y ago
  But the point is they are not spending enough on infrastructure. Only paying 10% on maintenance and then having perpetually potholed roads or a bridge collapse means the true cost is much higher. Infrastructure has a lifetime and it needs big capital infusions to replace, of that money isn't being stored away for that date then that's just hiding the spending problem.
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    All these roads have been built by a society that has been poorer than ours. If they could afford that, so can we. It’s really as simple as that.
    - radicalbyte 5y ago
      Poorer in absolute terms, sure. But take a random sample of 100 people from the city population and compare inflation (calculated including housing!) adjusted income and you'll see the opposite.
      - rightbyte 5y ago
        There is a machine on the road under my balcony right now, chugging and chewing asphalt 2 yards wide and spitting it up on a truck in-front of it. Road maintenance must be so much easier today than in the 70s. It feel to me neglect is by choice not necessity.
        croes 5y ago
        But the demands on the roads are also higher. Cars have more horsepower, higher speed, more weight. In addition, the roads are usually poorly repaired, so you have to repair them more often. In addition, the contracts are often tendered for private companies and the cheapest company wins. Thanks to the poor quality, repairs then have to be carried out correspondingly often.
        MomoXenosaga 5y ago
- dmos62 5y ago
  Their numbers not standing up is a pretty bold statement. Would be nice if you would back it up a bit more.
- croes 5y ago
  Could it simply be that it's easier to cut costs at infrastructure than criminal justice, fire and schools? Maybe it's just 10% of current budget, but actually needed would be 30%. Hence the streets with potholes.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Bingo! Delayed maintenance is an easy way to shift spending. You can put off that road resurfacing another year (maybe spend 5% of budget on asphalt patches), but can you just cut 10% of your police force this year?
- nu11us 5y ago
  Cities ate receiving federal funds to fix their roads. Instead of going broke, it’s just become a situation in which we’re all paying for it.

by flaque 5y ago

treis 5y ago

I've read various reports from them and I've not seen numbers that stand up. I'm not going to go through 5 more of them in detail to find the same thing. If any of them have actual numbers showing infrastructure eating up say 30% of the budget id be happy to look. But I can all but guarantee that they'll be the same story. Infrastructure at 10% or less with criminal justice, fire, and schools eating up the money.

ggm 5y ago
That infrastructure spend is too low. Steel and Concrete and buried utilities have a life. Many of the towns are up for significant capital investment beyond 10% maintenance. The spend is on 50s, 60s and 70s capex. It's getting old. Surely, on the risk side the estimated repair and replacement costs for bridges alone could drive a truck through this?
- brutusborn 5y ago
  What is your basis for saying 10% is too low? I'm not suggesting that you are wrong, I just want to figure out how you would determine if the spend is too high or too low for any given town.
  - okdjnfweonfe 5y ago
    the potholes continued existence is probably an aspect
    - ggm 5y ago
      The delayed capital works. If 10% is normal, off the back of the Eisenhower era spend, the JFK spend, the LBJ spend on infrastructure, then capital works budgets have been lick-of-paint since. They're overdue for significant re investment. The federal capital works improvement spending proposed as recovery intervention identifies 100 major bridges nationally, and another 10,000 worth investing in.[1] Since then 10% can't stop, the likely spend has to be more. It's that simple. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
    - brutusborn 5y ago
      Your reply is useless, but I'll rephrase to clarify anyway: how would one determine what percentage is appropriate for planning long term? I.e. so that I don't see potholes in 10 years, would I need 12% or 18% or 44% or <>% ? What factors would this depend on? E.g. is it always above 10% or only if the town has a very low density?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
Marazan 5y ago
But the point is they are not spending enough on infrastructure. Only paying 10% on maintenance and then having perpetually potholed roads or a bridge collapse means the true cost is much higher. Infrastructure has a lifetime and it needs big capital infusions to replace, of that money isn't being stored away for that date then that's just hiding the spending problem.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  All these roads have been built by a society that has been poorer than ours. If they could afford that, so can we. It’s really as simple as that.
  - radicalbyte 5y ago
    Poorer in absolute terms, sure. But take a random sample of 100 people from the city population and compare inflation (calculated including housing!) adjusted income and you'll see the opposite.
    - rightbyte 5y ago
      There is a machine on the road under my balcony right now, chugging and chewing asphalt 2 yards wide and spitting it up on a truck in-front of it. Road maintenance must be so much easier today than in the 70s. It feel to me neglect is by choice not necessity.
      - croes 5y ago
        But the demands on the roads are also higher. Cars have more horsepower, higher speed, more weight. In addition, the roads are usually poorly repaired, so you have to repair them more often. In addition, the contracts are often tendered for private companies and the cheapest company wins. Thanks to the poor quality, repairs then have to be carried out correspondingly often.
        MomoXenosaga 5y ago
dmos62 5y ago
Their numbers not standing up is a pretty bold statement. Would be nice if you would back it up a bit more.
croes 5y ago
Could it simply be that it's easier to cut costs at infrastructure than criminal justice, fire and schools? Maybe it's just 10% of current budget, but actually needed would be 30%. Hence the streets with potholes.
- refurb 5y ago
  Bingo! Delayed maintenance is an easy way to shift spending. You can put off that road resurfacing another year (maybe spend 5% of budget on asphalt patches), but can you just cut 10% of your police force this year?
nu11us 5y ago
Cities ate receiving federal funds to fix their roads. Instead of going broke, it’s just become a situation in which we’re all paying for it.