Results 1 to 4 of 4
Thanks Tree1Thanks
  • 1 Post By Supposn

Thread: Spending for public and quasi-public infrastructure:

  1. #1
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    487
    Thanks
    56

    Spending for public and quasi-public infrastructure:

    Spending for public and quasi-public infrastructure:


    Water and sewage are not in the public's view, items of glamour. Governments have often let them be less subject to reasonable repair and maintenance.


    But Michigan state's governor appointees have the power to overrule local governments.
    In the state of Michigan, within the democratic republic of the United States, the voters within the jurisdictions of their own local governments do not have the right to determine who are to manage their local government's affairs.


    Michigan state officials decided to save money and actually compromised the Flint city's water supply. Their children were drinking lead-laced water. No state officials were prosecuted and jailed for their reckless acts. Their​ entire water supply system now requires replacement. I doubt that will actually happen.


    USA's electrical grids are primarily government regulated private enterprises. Our incidences of “brownouts” or “blackouts” indicate they're in need of upgrading and are vulnerable to terrorist attacks.


    [President Eisenhower's administration initiated extremely generous federal subsidies
    for new and remodeled national highways, bridges, and tunnels; but repairs and maintenance didn't qualify under the program. State and local governments to the greatest extent possible), shifted funding to obtain such subsidies which later would no longer be available. Much of the new construction benefits were lost due to the extreme deteriorations of our older infrastructures. We simply did not spend for necessary repairs and maintenance. We should extensively be rebuilding or replacing bridges, roadways, pipelines and other public infrastructure that's no longer repairable. We're expensively rebuilding bridges because we didn't annually paint them. The lifespan of the Tappan Zee bridge, a greater than 3-mile bridge over the Hudson River was from 1955 to 2017. It was declared too expensive to repair, and had to be replaced].


    USA railroads road beds and rolling stock are comparatively second-rate. The cost of upgrading would certainly be economically net beneficial. Since our merchant marine industry, even less than our railroads, are in public's view, I suppose they're in no better condition than our railroads. That's reason to suppose improving USA's merchant marine facilities, and equipment, (including river barges), would also net justify such investments.
    The poorer conditions of our railroads and waterways cost our nation money and lives; they're financially inefficient and unsafe to their workers and to the public.


    Respectfully, Supposn

  2. #2
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,225
    Thanks
    4064

    From
    AK & ID
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Spending for public and quasi-public infrastructure:


    Water and sewage are not in the public's view, items of glamour. Governments have often let them be less subject to reasonable repair and maintenance.


    But Michigan state's governor appointees have the power to overrule local governments.
    In the state of Michigan, within the democratic republic of the United States, the voters within the jurisdictions of their own local governments do not have the right to determine who are to manage their local government's affairs.


    Michigan state officials decided to save money and actually compromised the Flint city's water supply. Their children were drinking lead-laced water. No state officials were prosecuted and jailed for their reckless acts. Their​ entire water supply system now requires replacement. I doubt that will actually happen.


    USA's electrical grids are primarily government regulated private enterprises. Our incidences of “brownouts” or “blackouts” indicate they're in need of upgrading and are vulnerable to terrorist attacks.


    [President Eisenhower's administration initiated extremely generous federal subsidies
    for new and remodeled national highways, bridges, and tunnels; but repairs and maintenance didn't qualify under the program. State and local governments to the greatest extent possible), shifted funding to obtain such subsidies which later would no longer be available. Much of the new construction benefits were lost due to the extreme deteriorations of our older infrastructures. We simply did not spend for necessary repairs and maintenance. We should extensively be rebuilding or replacing bridges, roadways, pipelines and other public infrastructure that's no longer repairable. We're expensively rebuilding bridges because we didn't annually paint them. The lifespan of the Tappan Zee bridge, a greater than 3-mile bridge over the Hudson River was from 1955 to 2017. It was declared too expensive to repair, and had to be replaced].


    USA railroads road beds and rolling stock are comparatively second-rate. The cost of upgrading would certainly be economically net beneficial. Since our merchant marine industry, even less than our railroads, are in public's view, I suppose they're in no better condition than our railroads. That's reason to suppose improving USA's merchant marine facilities, and equipment, (including river barges), would also net justify such investments.
    The poorer conditions of our railroads and waterways cost our nation money and lives; they're financially inefficient and unsafe to their workers and to the public.


    Respectfully, Supposn
    There is nothing that inherently makes state government better than local government at long term financial planning for infrastructure maintenance, repair and replacement, because ultimately the leaders are answering to the voters, and the voters often are short-sighted and want taxes and user fees to be kept low. As low as possible. This means they will routinely vote for leadership that will favor deferring maintenance to raising rates, and you end up with this cyclical crisis model of infrastructure replacement.

    When big infusions of federal investment in infrastructure help communities build things, there is a bit of moral hazard created. The community feels lucky to have benefited from outside money, and keeps taxes and rates low in the hopes that when they need money again decades later, more federal money will eventually come available. Further, there is significant federal grant money that is essentially need-based, i.e. your application scores better if you have more dilapidated infrastructure and less money available to fix it. This incentivizes local governments keeping themselves poorer, which is associated with poor long-term financial planning and ongoing, cyclical dependency on state and federal investment.

    Some people aren't even sure it's that big of a deal to have to rebuild as opposed to maintain. It just depends on what it is, and what the maintenance cost is relative to replacement. Like with enough ongoing maintenance, could you still be driving that old Plymouth Horizon? Sure, but why would you even want to? Some things end up being poorly designed for the current needs and not as functional or valuable as was originally intended, and the cost to rehabilitate, renovate and maintain some facilities and infrastructure might not be worth it, relative to bulldozing and starting over with something that meets current needs better than something that was barely adequately designed 50 years ago.

  3. #3
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    487
    Thanks
    56

    Neomalthusian, major reconstruction of suspension bridges, tunnels, underground cables and pipelines, and major highways are hugely expensive projects. Reducing or interrupting their services is problematic. Taking them out of service for a for days, or even for a full day is usually unfeasible.

    After much expense, congestion and delays, the Tappan Zee Bridge was not rebuilt, it was replaced. The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge was completed in 2017 and the demolition of the 62 year young bridge was then begun. Suspension bridges lifespans are expected to be measured in half-century, rather than yearly increments.

    Rebuilding major infrastructures because we stopped painting them is not economical? Replacing a 62 year old suspension bridge? These things should not be regarded as replaceable items to be discarded.

    Respectfully, Supposn
    Thanks from MaryAnne

  4. #4
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    41,491
    Thanks
    43594

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Neomalthusian, major reconstruction of suspension bridges, tunnels, underground cables and pipelines, and major highways are hugely expensive projects. Reducing or interrupting their services is problematic. Taking them out of service for a for days, or even for a full day is usually unfeasible.

    After much expense, congestion and delays, the Tappan Zee Bridge was not rebuilt, it was replaced. The replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge was completed in 2017 and the demolition of the 62 year young bridge was then begun. Suspension bridges lifespans are expected to be measured in half-century, rather than yearly increments.

    Rebuilding major infrastructures because we stopped painting them is not economical? Replacing a 62 year old suspension bridge? These things should not be regarded as replaceable items to be discarded.

    Respectfully, Supposn
    Like the man said, we are still attending Roosevelt's schools and driving on Ike's highways.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 136
    Last Post: 11th November 2016, 05:50 AM
  2. When Public Servants Refuse to Serve the Public
    By Babba in forum Civil Rights
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 22nd August 2015, 06:43 AM
  3. The Stunning Drop in Infrastructure Spending
    By Babba in forum Economics
    Replies: 225
    Last Post: 15th November 2013, 09:20 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 22nd October 2011, 01:34 PM
  5. Cities Debate Privatizing Public Infrastructure
    By michaelr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 30th August 2008, 10:01 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed