Comment 57160

By sbwoodside (registered) - website | Posted January 20, 2011 at 02:16:26

@arienc Normally depreciation would be equal to replacement value in any normal accounting system. Why do you say it isn't?

I think your $1.888 billion would be the book value right?

Then I would call the $56 million "spending" on roads and the $73 million "loss in value". Which means that the city was not replacing the roads as quickly as they were degrading in 2009.

In other words... the city spent $56 million on roads in 2009, and still didn't keep up with necessary investment according to their own accounting system.

Now, all of the above would account purely for the tarmac, right?

You also talk about "transportation services" at $326 million. Does that include the full $56 million from above, or is it a separate expenditure? What percentage of transportation services would be services related to roads? What other kinds of transportation would they be servicing, aside from buses?

What's "protection services"? Is that police, fire, ambulance, that kind of thing?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds