I come from Western Massachusetts, which is characterized by smaller populations and lower budgetary allocations. The most significant budget item in most municipalities here is education, followed by road maintenance, which is often extremely costly. In Massachusetts, the basic cost estimate for repaving a standard road is approximately $1 million per mile, and this investment typically only lasts about a decade before it requires another round of expensive repairs.
Bridges are even more financially burdensome. Recently, we replaced a culvert that was so small I could easily jump over it, and yet it set us back $700,000. Keep in mind; we're talking about a town with a population of around 1,000 people, and we have over 30 of these culverts and bridges scattered across our approximately 80 miles of road within a 55-square-mile area. If you're familiar with the region, you might even be able to pinpoint which town I'm referring to.
To add to the challenge, not only do we have to repave our roads every 7-10 years to prevent them from falling into disrepair, but we also have to maintain them for safety, plow them, and salt them for safe travel. Over the past three decades, the expectations for maintaining these infrastructures have significantly increased.
The problem lies in the way taxes are structured, which is based on the combined value of land and improvements (buildings). Particularly in smaller towns and cities, most people are trying to get the most affordable option. This approach encourages sprawl, resulting in substantial infrastructure construction and maintenance costs. In larger cities (unlike mine), the upkeep of water and sewer lines are another considerable addition.
In more suburban communities, we're witnessing the aging of infrastructure that was originally constructed during the early days of the automobile era. The cost of replacing this aging infrastructure is substantial, but growth expectations, which used to help fund these projects, are dwindling. Many people who moved a few miles outside the city center still expect the same level of services without understanding the financial implications. This situation places a significant strain on tax funds, leaving us with limited resources to invest in valuable critical community needs and values.
We now live in a small city in multi-unit building that has ~60 ft of road frontage, and is right in downtown. The building has 6 apartments so has considerable value. But our _infrastructure_ costs are tiny compared to those that live in suburbia. Why are we paying more taxes for helping the city be efficient?
MA GL says you have to tax everyone on their property value - so someone in a 250K house out in suburbia that costs the town huge amounts to maintain their roads, sewers and water, actually costs the town money -- while a downtown 6-unit $1.5M building next to others that use the same services, is a boon.
And what made that possible? The proliferation of the automobile.
We need our tax system to promote density - which means you can spend more tax money on things that matter.
The Strong Towns YouTube channel makes many similar points. Suburban construction in the US is terribly inefficient and wasteful in the long run by maximizing the convenience auto accessibility at the expense of everything else. If infrastructure had a technical debt equivalent, it would be suburban planning.
One thing I think Strong Towns would do better to emphasize is that their argument that suburbs are financially unsustainable applies more to those suburbs of struggling towns or small cities. I don't believe suburbs of large, economically healthy cities are running into unsustainable infrastructure costs nearly as much. They may run into funding difficulties if the suburb becomes an undesirable area, or if the pension fund bankrupts the city, but they don't seem to be running into the issue that their property taxes can't fund them.
Exactly. ST seems to want to conflate areas that would probably be considered 'rural' with actual suburbs of large metro areas. Look at some of the towns mentioned in their 'suburbs bad' articles and you'll note they are usually quite far from a city, and usually that city is 2nd or 3rd tier (and likely facing its own financial issues.)
If anything, many of these rural/exurb communities are already at the minimum population needed to support the industries that must exist outside of dense/expensive cities. These aren't the overpriced McMansions full of entitled upper class folks, those tend to be located near the city, and are quite healthy financially due to outsized local tax revenues.
> [1] The Lafayette metropolitan area was Louisiana's third largest metropolitan statistical area with a population of 478,384 at the 2020 census.
I haven't really looked at Lafayette so it might count as rural but if the 3rd largest metro area of a state is the size ST says is unsustainable [2] then that bodes pretty poorly for all but 2 of it's metro areas.
I bet a lot of say New Jersey is close enough to either Philly or NYC to avoid being "3rd tier" but there's a whole lot of the country that isn't near a top-10 metro area.
Eastern Mass resident here. Thanks for sharing this. I wish our elected officials were so transparent with these basic facts when they discuss road improvement projects.
In my city we pay a negligible “excise tax” on our vehicles. It’s like $100 for 2 older cars. If it were doubled or even tripled in think most people could afford it. This would seem to be the logical way to pay for road improvements, or a municipal gas tax.
Yes, people would skirt it (there already is a problem with people’s registering their cars in New Hampshire to avoid the excise tax, or driving over state lines to buy gasoline). But if even 80% of residents paid the taxes, it would make a real difference to municipal budgets for fixing roads.
> Bridges are even more financially burdensome. Recently, we replaced a culvert that was so small I could easily jump over it, and yet it set us back $700,000.
Why? Why didn't you all agree to go down to Home Depot and load up on one big short metal pipe and some cement if that's the case? How was 700K spent?
Then it seems to be more of a problem with excessive regulation then suburbs themselves.
As a thought experiment, even the wealthiest city in the world couldn't afford a single bridge if regulations required bridges to be made out of stainless steel.
In case you're not joking, government entities in the US are not allowed to build road structures that will collapse the first time a farmer drives a loaded grain hauler over them.
In the ideal world we would be able to compare a privately built and insured road to a public road with tax payer liability for mishaps. I suspect the reality of a privately maintained road is still subject to regulatory overhead.
I built a new house on a newly built road in a semi-urban area. The parcel of land that I bought on the road came with an agreement to pay back the 30 year bond the city took out for the construction of the road and related infrastructure. This amounted to about ~$4MM (in addition to village & city property taxes), so it's a hefty fee even thought its divided among 50 other households.
After I moved here, the people in the village decided to drastically hike income taxes to pay for improvements of other village roads. People saw 50 nice new houses being built and decided those people are responsible for paying for everything the village needs.
This is what will happen all over the USA. People want their infrastructure, but they will find ways to make anyone else pay for it.
I've been saying this in relation to all the paving that is done throughout my Eastern-European country with EU money, that is that at some point having that many paved roads around becomes economically unproductive, especially when it comes to communities that are getting older and smaller (in terms of numbers).
I've been answered something on the lines of "but all those paved roads will create economic activity and we will all become richer and we will be able to afford their maintenance going forward", which is reportedly not true anymore (also because of demographics and of the ageing population). It might have been true some decades ago, when the demographics were different and the age pyramid was more "normal", but not anymore.
Great explanation. Seems like the Cliff's Notes version is that values are based on supply and demand, ignoring costs, and car culture has distorted both. I've been a Georgist since forever, but I'd never looked at things from that angle before. Thank you.
Bridges are even more financially burdensome. Recently, we replaced a culvert that was so small I could easily jump over it, and yet it set us back $700,000. Keep in mind; we're talking about a town with a population of around 1,000 people, and we have over 30 of these culverts and bridges scattered across our approximately 80 miles of road within a 55-square-mile area. If you're familiar with the region, you might even be able to pinpoint which town I'm referring to.
To add to the challenge, not only do we have to repave our roads every 7-10 years to prevent them from falling into disrepair, but we also have to maintain them for safety, plow them, and salt them for safe travel. Over the past three decades, the expectations for maintaining these infrastructures have significantly increased.
The problem lies in the way taxes are structured, which is based on the combined value of land and improvements (buildings). Particularly in smaller towns and cities, most people are trying to get the most affordable option. This approach encourages sprawl, resulting in substantial infrastructure construction and maintenance costs. In larger cities (unlike mine), the upkeep of water and sewer lines are another considerable addition.
In more suburban communities, we're witnessing the aging of infrastructure that was originally constructed during the early days of the automobile era. The cost of replacing this aging infrastructure is substantial, but growth expectations, which used to help fund these projects, are dwindling. Many people who moved a few miles outside the city center still expect the same level of services without understanding the financial implications. This situation places a significant strain on tax funds, leaving us with limited resources to invest in valuable critical community needs and values.
We now live in a small city in multi-unit building that has ~60 ft of road frontage, and is right in downtown. The building has 6 apartments so has considerable value. But our _infrastructure_ costs are tiny compared to those that live in suburbia. Why are we paying more taxes for helping the city be efficient?
MA GL says you have to tax everyone on their property value - so someone in a 250K house out in suburbia that costs the town huge amounts to maintain their roads, sewers and water, actually costs the town money -- while a downtown 6-unit $1.5M building next to others that use the same services, is a boon.
And what made that possible? The proliferation of the automobile.
We need our tax system to promote density - which means you can spend more tax money on things that matter.
(this has been edited in places by ChatGPT)