• Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I don’t know about Chilean economies of scale. The article you linked was about privatization of utilities and the economies of scale in that sector.

    What I do know is that in the US suburbs, my total water costs are much lower than when I lived in the city. Running clean water pipes to homes and sewage pipes is extraordinarily expensive.

    Flint Michigan is looking at $600m to replace pipes to 43k homes. That’s $14k per home and then they still have to pay for water and sewer.

    The average cost for a well and sceptic is $12k and then it’s free. Average water bill is $1400 a year for urban residents.

    If combining utilities was cost effective, my neighborhood would have done it when it was built. It’s the same with gas lines.

    • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Interesting. My water bill is around $800 per year, and that includes sewerage service. That well would take 15 years to reach cost parity, and that’s leaving out the septic system.

      And wells are decidedly not free after installation, if my parents’ experience is anything to go by. (Nothing catastrophic, to they just had to pay for pump maintenance occasionally.)

    • clara@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      yep, you’re entirely right. for your area, it’s more effective to run wells for each person. the frustrating part being that, it implies that the city has been designed so, so badly, that individuals can’t actually share resources, without the per capita price going up if they do so.

      even without depopulation, that’s a huge governmental failure. if individuals are having to run all their own utility setups and infrastructure, is that even a “city”? it sounds more like rural living but it’s all vaguely connected. presumably as a result of this low density, you have higher ongoing costs elsewhere? i.e commutes to work, cost of food, etc

      if not, then it could be one of those taxpayer-subsidised things, where it feels cheaper for each resident, but the reality is that someone else is paying for it. i’m not good at wording what i mean in this case, but i will pass you to this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI) to show it instead, he does a better job of explaining what i’m talking about

      anyhow… that’s crazy! it’s entirely the thing i’m worried about seeing replicated large scale as a result of a reduction in population