
Are Your Taxes Paying for the Cost of Your Street? - jtsnow
http://mapstoryblog.thenittygritty.org/costofstreets/
======
clarkmoody

      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?artic...](http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1434&context=scholarlyworks)

~~~
rayiner
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
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.

~~~
ars
> Make that the world.

Please don't!!!

I stay far far far away from the dense cities. I can't stand those places.

I'm quite happy with the way in the US you can pick where you want to live -
anything from superdense, to urban, to suburban, to rural.

Whatever you like, there's a city that will match you.

Even better is how in some cities there is a mix, all within 50 miles of each
other you have all the types. You get the benefit of business city center
without actually having to live there.

~~~
mabbo
That's fine, so long as you're willing to pay for your infrastructure. Low-
density suburbs with full utilities, storm sewer, etc, must have it's cost
paid for by those who choose to live that lifestyle.

Those of us living 27 stories up are more efficient and shouldn't have to pay
for your roads.

~~~
chrismcb
Because you grow crops on the roof, weave cotton in the basement, and build
for furniture on another for? Roads are used for more than moving people
around, they also move good around,which almost everyone partakes.

~~~
rubber_duck
>Because you grow crops on the roof, weave cotton in the basement, and build
for furniture on another for?

There's this thing that lets you present those expenses to consumers - it's
called pricing.

You have to pay more for road maintenance - you raise prices to cover it - I
now see the actual cost of your product instead of it being subsidized by my
tax money regardless of using them.

------
massysett
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.

~~~
bufordsharkley
> 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.

It's worth reading up on Joseph Stiglitz's work in the 1970s that demonstrated
how government spending in public goods is transformed exactly into land rents
under many conditions.[0]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem)

~~~
eru
Thanks for the link! That's awesome.

------
theanomaly
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
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.

------
stevep001
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
>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
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-...](https://www.bloomingtonmn.gov/sites/default/files/media/PMP-
brochure.pdf)

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.

------
mfoy_
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
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_
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?

~~~
rbritton
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
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.

------
bbarn
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
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.

------
maxsilver
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-Y...](https://www.michigan.gov/documents/Vol2-40UIP16SubDevCosts-
YardCosts-Demolition_121083_7.pdf)

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.

~~~
kevinnk
> Of course, Michigan roads are infamous for being terrible -- this might be
> the reason.

This is a bit of a tangent, but Michigan actually has fairly high construction
standards for roads. However, it also has one of the highest truck weight
limits in the nation (over double the federal limit) and most road damage
comes from heavy trucks.

~~~
bbarn
And winter freeze/thaw cycles, which Michigan also has plenty of :)

------
cletus
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
> 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.

------
JoblessWonder
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/StreetMainten...](http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Departments/PublicWork/StreetMaintenance/StreetMaintenanceProcesses.aspx)

------
warfangle
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
The calculation shown has a width/2 in it.

~~~
gefh
Good eye, I missed that.

~~~
largote
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
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
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
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.

------
ezoe
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.

------
cwalv
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.

------
codingdave
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
Who pays in 30 years when it needs to be repaved?

------
ranprieur
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.

------
intrasight
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.

------
stretchwithme
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.

------
gnicholas
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.

------
jdavis703
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.

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

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

------
dollar
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?

------
fiatjaf
See also:
[http://andrewalexanderprice.com/blog.php](http://andrewalexanderprice.com/blog.php)
for lots of pictures.

------
bagels
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.

~~~
ItsDeathball
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
A Google search for "federal street construction grant" indicates otherwise.
There's lots of results discussing such grants.

------
elchief
Driverless cars solve this problem pretty soon

The end result is going to be about ~80% fewer cars in existence.

~~~
bduerst
Why? Drivers or not, cars still need roads to reach locations.

~~~
startling
Presumably, fewer cars means less road repair necessary.

~~~
sokoloff
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.

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

------
caseysoftware
Btw, what's your first pet's name?

(now that we know the street you grew up on..)

------
jsprogrammer
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
Oh, wow, did no one read the article?

------
Wile_E_Quixote
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
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.

