If this is accurate. St. Louis City only has 311k residents (St. Charles: insurance, to buy)

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by 1764

Most of the hallowing out in the city is in North St.Louis where majority of the African American population lives. It'll continue to hallow out for another decade or 2. I can see the city population stabilizing along the way though it will take a lot than whats happening now for that to change.
I'm not going to waste my time on people who choose to be negative about St.Louis City the ignorance exudes more and more just like Trump no pun intended you are what you are!

Most but not all. This is also happening on the south side. I'm informed a ton of the Bosnians have bailed.

[1grin_g0]

Originally Posted by FrankMiller

The cities might not control the legislature, but they're the ones subsidizing it. Regardless, just because the legislature can do something doesn't mean it's a good idea. Yes, it's fully within their rights to dramatically expand infrastructure despite no money and a stagnant population, driving the state into inevitable bankruptcy.

Adding a few more lanes to St. Charles is not going to break the bank. You like to point out Missouri's crumbling infrastructure and out of control maintenance costs, but those assertions are not true.



http://reason.org/files/22nd_annual_highway_report.pdf

States are ranked in 11 categories including Interstate and rural primary road pavement conditions,
deficient bridges, traffic congestion, fatality rates, unsafe narrow rural arterial lanes, capital costs per mile,
administrative costs per mile, maintenance costs per mile and total highway expenditures per mile.

Don't take my word for it. Read the report. Missouri's highway system is ranked 12th.

[1grin_g0]

Originally Posted by 1764

Most of the hallowing out in the city is in North St.Louis where majority of the African American population lives. It'll continue to hallow out for another decade or 2. I can see the city population stabilizing along the way though it will take a lot than whats happening now for that to change.
I'm not going to waste my time on people who choose to be negative about St.Louis City the ignorance exudes more and more just like Trump no pun intended you are what you are!

Are you suggesting that population loss is ok because it is mainly blacks that are leaving and having their neighborhoods torn down?

By the way, the city's decline is not Trump's fault. The city has been under the control of local democrats for decades. Pointing out the facts is not being negative, it is being real. The city continues to decline, while St. Charles continues to grow.

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by 1grin_g0

Adding a few more lanes to St. Charles is not going to break the bank. You like to point out Missouri's crumbling infrastructure and out of control maintenance costs, but those assertions are not true.

MoDOT Has Bigger Plans, Lacks a Bigger Budget « CBS St. Louis

“Really what we are saying is … we have enough money to maintain our system,” Horn says. “But not really to … what we should be doing – build new to our system.”

[1grin_g0]

Originally Posted by FrankMiller

MoDOT Has Bigger Plans, Lacks a Bigger Budget « CBS St. Louis

Give me a break. When is the last time a high ranking official wanted less money, LOL! Every department head wants more money for their department. What he said is pretty much worthless.

Read the report.

[MOforthewin]

Originally Posted by 1grin_g0

Are you suggesting that population loss is ok because it is mainly blacks that are leaving and having their neighborhoods torn down?

By the way, the city's decline is not Trump's fault. The city has been under the control of local democrats for decades. Pointing out the facts is not being negative, it is being real. The city continues to decline, while St. Charles continues to grow.

When I'm in the city I don't see a lot of buildings being turn down. The ones I see are vacant buildings that are empty or simply falling apart. Some areas look like the aftermath of the Battle of Berlin.

[RisingAurvandil]

Originally Posted by 1grin_g0

Adding a few more lanes to St. Charles is not going to break the bank. You like to point out Missouri's crumbling infrastructure and out of control maintenance costs, but those assertions are not true.



http://reason.org/files/22nd_annual_highway_report.pdf

That report clearly states that Missouri has the 4th lowest per-mile budget in America. That means 46 other states are investing more.

So no, this state does not have extra funds for expansion.

Originally Posted by 1grin_g0

Are you suggesting that population loss is ok because it is mainly blacks that are leaving and having their neighborhoods torn down?

There was nothing in his post suggesting that. Why are you asking that question?

[1grin_g0]

Originally Posted by RisingAurvandil

That report clearly states that Missouri has the 4th lowest per-mile budget in America. That means 46 other states are investing more.

So no, this state does not have extra funds for expansion.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. The report is saying that Missouri has the 4th lowest cost per mile, specifically total disbursements per mile. That is a measure of cost effectiveness. You want the state to be cost effective. In other words, Missouri is doing more with less. That is a good thing.

[FrankMiller]

Originally Posted by 1grin_g0

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. The report is saying that Missouri has the 4th lowest cost per mile, specifically total disbursements per mile. That is a measure of cost effectiveness. You want the state to be cost effective. In other words, Missouri is doing more with less. That is a good thing.

That's ridiculous, not all states have he same needs. It's silly to say Missouri is more cost effective because it's paving roads through cornfields more cheaply than California's mountain roads or whatever. All you need to do to be cost-effective is zero out the budget, since the measure doesn't include a quality component. Congratulations, your eroding roads are infinitely cost-effective!

In any case, the country's infrastructure as a whole has a D grade; just because Missouri's infrastructure is better than average (assuming we believe that) doesn't mean it isn't crumbling.

[1grin_g0]

Originally Posted by FrankMiller

That's ridiculous, not all states have he same needs. It's silly to say Missouri is more cost effective because it's paving roads through cornfields more cheaply than California's mountain roads or whatever. All you need to do to be cost-effective is zero out the budget, since the measure doesn't include a quality component. Congratulations, your eroding roads are infinitely cost-effective!

In any case, the country's infrastructure as a whole has a D grade; just because Missouri's infrastructure is better than average (assuming we believe that) doesn't mean it isn't crumbling.

No, what is ridiculous is comparing Missouri to California. Cornfields? I am glad you brought that up. Illinois is ranked 29th overall, and Iowa is ranked 40th. Missouri is ranked 12th overall. Cost effectiveness is just one factor that goes in to the overall rankings. I guess you missed this part that I posted above:

States are ranked in 11 categories including Interstate and rural primary road pavement conditions,
deficient bridges, traffic congestion, fatality rates, unsafe narrow rural arterial lanes, capital costs per mile,
administrative costs per mile, maintenance costs per mile and total highway expenditures per mile.

You sound disappointed that Missouri is ranked #4 with respect to cost per mile. Maybe that is because the facts don't line up with your beliefs. I am confused. You keep saying that Missouri's infrastructure maintenance costs are too burdensome, yet you are disappointed that Missouri is ranked #4 with respect to total costs per mile. Now, do you want Missouri to spend more or less per mile?


As far as the nation's infrastructure system, the current administration has talked about a trillion dollar plan. We'll see where that goes, but Missouri shouldn't worry about that because it is out of the state's control. That said, hopefully a bipartisan bill will pass Congress sometime soon. If it does, hopefully places that are actually growing (like St. Charles) get a larger piece of the pie. Missouri needs to move forward and look toward the future instead of doubling down on cities that have failed to perform.