And they done nothing of the sort. I have yet to see a place where spending on infrastructure maintenance is above 20% of municipality budget. Usually it’s around 10%.

Have you seen a city with under-maintained infrastructure?

https://www.artba.org/2021/03/23/over-220000-u-s-bridges-nee...

$42bil to fix all structurally deficient bridges in the whole of the USA seems pretty cheap. I was expecting a much larger number considering the doom and gloom here.

First it's bridges, then it's roading, electric lines, gas lines, water lines, sewerage, civic buildings needing maintenance (schools, hospitals, community centers).

There are endless projects that need money to maintain and the current system of sprawl spreads that money too thinly.

Yeah, from the article the baseline for the big stuff is 5 trillion

> In America, we have a ticking time bomb of unfunded liability for infrastructure maintenance. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates the cost at $5 trillion — but that's just for major infrastructure, not the minor streets, curbs, walks, and pipes that serve our homes.

>>electric lines, gas lines, water lines, sewerage,

All of these are for profit business that should not need tax money to maintain..

>There are endless projects that need money to maintain and the current system of sprawl spreads that money too thinly.

If you look at where the actual tax money is being spent, is not being spread thin due to "system of sprawl" far from it.

In fact if you look at the actual data most of the time smaller cities have better maintained roads, schools, hospitals, and community centers than the more densely populated area's.

There is somewhat of a bell curve here, there is a sweet spot in population density, too much is a bad thing, and to little can be a bad thing.

Aren't they run like state owner utility companies though? They usually have no competition, state mandated prices, profits enshrined in law, etc..?

> bell curve

How much high-density cities with infrastructure in poor shape spend on infrastructure in percent of their budget? It might be that they still get a better bang for their buck, no?