4 ms·

> And because the government is bad at setting prices, that model has resulted in failure, at least in the US. Why does everyone seem to take this for granted?

• rayiner 7y ago
  > Why does everyone seem to take this for granted? I've drank tap water my entire life, living in 5 different states. It tastes good, is cheap, healthy, and environmentally friendly compared to any other option. That's like saying "cities and states are able to pay retired teachers now, so what's the problem?" The problem is that the government under-invested in the infrastructure for decades and now those problems are coming to a head: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39410561 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39410561 ($1 trillion needed to shore up "aging" water infrastructure). It's the same problem that is pervasive in municipal infrastructure. You can get away with under-investing, until you can't. It's the same reason NYC's subway has melted down, DC's subway is on fire, etc. Nationwide, infrastructure--which is mostly a municipal responsibility--is underfunded to the tune of $5 trillion by 2040: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-infrastructure-idUSKCN0Y12K6 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-infrastructure-idUSKC.... That is the direct result of policies that give people what they want--more infrastructure at low prices. It works until it doesn't. > Sure, there are examples of failure. Are they significant examples of the model being bad? Any system with thousands of examples is going to have a few failures. It doesn't mean the system is bad. Pretty much every major city is an example, from D.C.'s inability to upgrade civil war era sewers that are polluting the Potomac to Chicago's inability to upgrade lead piping that is poisoning children.
  • creato 7y ago
    $1 trillion sounds bad. But divided over 10, 20, 30 years, divided by how many municipalities? And for something as basic and valuable as clean water? Are we just talking about a few percent of most city's water systems' budget? Characterizing this as categorical failure, with the implication that the whole system should be thrown out and drastic measures taken, seems wrong to me.
    • rayiner 7y ago
      Total US spending on water and sewer infrastructure is $65 billion per year. And we have 10 years, not 30. These systems are already at the end of their 70-75 year expected service life. So you’re talking about doubling water budgets to meet the backlog. That’s just water. Other infrastructure has been neglected by state and local governments, leading to a $5 trillion backlog (including water). That’s 10x total US annual spending on infrastructure. Trains have to slow down when it rains in the DC/Baltimore area because the 100+ year old tunnels under Baltimore are leaky. DC’s metro trains were self driving when they were built in the 1970s. They had to shut off that system because the supporting track infrastructure had been allowed to degrade so much. New York’s subway has basically melted down. Ridership in DC and New York, the two biggest transit systems in the country, has been declining despite population growth because the system can’t provide the level of service it did even 20 years ago, due to decades of neglected maintenance. Meanwhile, lead pipes are poisoning kids in Chicago, and DC’s civil war era sewers dump untreated raw sewage into the Potomac when it rains. These systems needed to be upgraded decades ago. I’m not advocating getting rid of the entire system. I’m pointing out that it goes far beyond a “few examples of failures” as you claimed in your earlier post. It’s a systematic problem that affects almost every municipality that allows political bodies to set prices for services. They systematically set them too low to allow long term sustainability.