Peter Ladner writes in Business In Vancouver about the upcoming increase in Canadian infrastructure spending. He introduces a few new ideas and covers some well-known ones — which suggest to me an expanded view of what infrastructure is, why we’re in deficit and what our spending priorities might become.
Charles Marohn, the Republican civil engineer behind the U.S. Strong Towns movement, has an answer. He likens traditional suburban development to a Ponzi scheme. Tax revenues from low-density development don’t come near paying for maintenance and depreciation on costly infrastructure. He estimates suburban property taxes bring in only $0.04 to $0.65 for every dollar of liability. So cities embrace new developments to keep their cash flowing, or they go into debt, or both. At every stage, they pile on future liabilities. After a while, the infrastructure deficit reaches $123 billion . . . .
. . . . The other missing piece in our infrastructure management is measuring, managing and financing the services we get “free” from nature. When New York City backed off a proposed multibillion-dollar water treatment plant in favour of expanding its natural watershed and letting trees and soil purify its water, it saved billions of dollars. Yet most infrastructure spending favours replacing stormwater pipes rather than expanding wetlands and watersheds.
Thanks to Colin Brander for the tip.













article-specific URL:
https://www.biv.com/article/2015/12/traditional-infrastructure-funding-throws-money-do/
Author
Thanks, Michelle.