Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 564 posts

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#361

Post by bogomipz »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #308
bogomipz wrote: post #78

I don't know if "forgotten" as used in the title is the correct word so much as just "out of practice." Look at this list of infrastructure projects in China in the last decade or so: http://www.businessinsider.com/giant-chinese-infrastructure-... It's hard not to be impressed by that list. And China is undertaking these scale projects abroad as well from Latin America to Africa. It's should be no surprise that you g…

It's almost like a democracy slows development, if you compare China to India it looks like that.

Another possibility is that development slows when you're spending Trillion dollars[1] on endless wars abroad instead of investing in infrastructure at home:

[1] http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/economic

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#362

Post by esfandia »

alistairSH wrote: post #39
tmh79 wrote: post #26

It seems to me like the biggest things that have changed are the safety regulations on the construction process itself and the finished product. The golden gate bridge was built in a few years, but with a few worker deaths. Building a new bridge like the golden gate today would likely be illegal, and take ~25 years.

That doesn't explain the difference in time/cost between current-day USA and current-day France or Japan. All three have modern safety and environmental regulations, yet two can complete jobs faster and for less money.

I can't explain the difference, but I bet that infrastructure costs have gone up drastically there as well.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#363

Post by primeblue »

Mz wrote: post #242
mason240 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're replying to a comment where I made clear that I want you to be able to make your own lifestyle preferences.

They have right to choose to limit their standard of living, as you have done, and move to an urban core and be completely dependent on transit for transportation. This is dismissive, insulting of my preference to live without a car and rather hostile. If you were intending to say that you support my right to choose, you failed to communicate that. It came across as contemptuous and is in no way sympathetic to the fa…

Only a minority of the country lives without children where a car is necessary. And who's rich enough to live in an urban centre with 2 children? More importantly who would!

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#364

Post by ShannonAlther »

watwut wrote: post #343
ShannonAlther wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless you are driving quite a long distance and/or on the open highway, car travel is not as much faster than foot travel as some people seem to believe. The average speed limit on municipal roads in Ontario is 50 km/h, which means that anywhere within 5km will take 6 minutes and, within 10km, 12 minutes. Running 5km takes me 18 minutes, and running 10km takes me closer to 40 minutes. Humans walk at about 5km/h, w…

You are not doing speed limit on average in most cities. You slow down for turns, you wait for red light, you wait for other cars, you are parking. Most importantly, shortcuts available to pedestrians are not available to cars that have to take longer route. I do groceries by walk and it never took 2 hours. The store is not 5km away pretty much from anywhere. You have to be out of city or in the middle of night for i…

Counterpoints:

* Slowdowns, sure, but many drivers also exceed the limit, and the walking:driving ratio is still massively lopsided.

* Pedestrians are not immune to red lights.

* While there are certainly pedestrian shortcuts that are faster than driving, this is definitely not the case for most combinations of start and end points. Far more often, while the pedestrian might gain distance, the car is still literally 10x faster.

* In fact, unless you live in an extremely dense city, it's highly unlikely that there will be a grocery shop, book store, electronics retailer, Italian restaurant, furniture store, etc. less than 5km from your house. Plus all of the people who you might want to visit, your school, place of work, and so on.

* A bike is not walking. Most bikes are for one person, so if you're in a group they're not much use.

* Carrying purchases home is a pain. I should know, I did this for two years.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#365

Post by chc »

brookside wrote: post #336
chc wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we try to get through one thread on HN without frothing at the mouth about how much we hate cars? Message received, you happen to be in a situation where you don't need a car — I am genuinely happy for you, as well as envious. But it is not necessary or helpful for someone to bang on about it in every single thread that has anything to do with building stuff. It doesn't help anything, and it just annoys people wh…

Society is not moving away from a car-based infrastructure. The majority of people have no issues with a car-based society. MORE people need to be making a stink. If this annoys you...sorry not sorry.

Everyone on the planet could weep in unison about the continued existence of cars and it wouldn't improve a thing. If this is a problem you sincerely want to solve, create real-world solutions, not angry Internet rants.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#366

Post by primeblue »

ethagknight wrote: post #191
efsavage wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is correct. I wonder if anyone has tried doing "design and build" contracts where this becomes an internal cost center instead of a profit driver, and would theoretically get optimized out.

I am on the developer side on a project with a design-build contract with a major contractor. the architecture side and contractors are pitting against each other internally, because the architect is still liable for his drawings being correct, and the contractor is still liable for the work being complete to the contract documents. Seeking to align efforts to minimize detailing costs is a recipe for very costly mist…

So much compliance, that's the problem.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#367

Post by Animats »

anovikov wrote: post #267
TulliusCicero wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a self-inflicted problem though. Nobody put a gun to America's head and forced us to make our cities sprawl out. We collectively decided to do it that way because we thought it was better. And for a few things it IS better. But there are a whole lotta costs, too, with the top 3 being being actual financial cost, grinding on the faces of the poor, and making us fat.

It was done for a very rational reason: making country more immune to a nuclear attack, especially the retaliation to its own nuclear attack (i.e. a nuclear attack that is coming in convenient time of day and week because you chose the time). It works perfectly to that purpose: it is whole lot better to keep all relevant population in separate houses with basements, with little combustible material around, than in mu…

There was a serious attempt to do that in the 1950s, although it didn't have great impact. It is, however, why IBM corporate headquarters moved from Manhattan to Armonk, NY.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#368

Post by wahern »

cylinder wrote: post #310
wahern wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those liability problems exist in every advanced Western country. It's true that litigation is more costly in common law countries, in some cases twice as high, and that this cost can be internalized in the ways you suggest. But those costs only account for single-digit percentages overall. What you describe could also be understood as an inefficient way of organization that is peculiar to the United States, and a by…

No not really, once you study the legal system of other advanced countries you will realize the US system is completely insane. The verdicts are wild, and we use juries for complex civil litigation. A bunch of regular Joes are supposed to understand torts and then even calculate damages! The result is trial lawyers succeed by playing on emotion, class, race, playing a character, etc., and a bunch of bored confused Jo…

There are several recent studies that have attempted to quantify the costs. I don't have the time to locate and paste them here, but the TL;DR is that 1) yes, common law countries have much higher litigation costs; 2) the U.S. is the highest of all; but 3) while significant the differences are nowhere near enough to explain the enormous differences in infrastructure costs.

As for direct liability costs, I can't remember if I've read any recent studies of those. But I went to law school (I'm not an attorney, though) and several of my family members are tort lawyers, and I can tell you from everything I know and have learned that liability costs are overblown. The fact of the matter is that every society will force negligent businesses to internalize the costs of their negligence. Some countries (esp. common law countries) emphasize the ability of individuals to seek compensation for actual damages. Other countries emphasize prevention and enforce a much stricter regulatory regime. Either way the costs can be considerable, but in any event the U.S. doesn't stand out among developed countries AFAIK.

I just watched the Wizard of Oz this past weekend and in one of the opening scenes Miss Gulch, who was bitten by Toto, threatens to sue Dorothy's Aunt & Uncle for everything they have, taking away their farm. Point being, Americans have always had a somewhat irrational fear of litigation. It's a cultural thing. That same fear existed back in a time when building big infrastructure projects was cheap.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#370

Post by phkahler »

saint_fiasco wrote: post #246
Xeoncross wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assume those that live in small cities work there as well. A large number of people living rural areas or small cities drive to big cities to work. There are very few "small" cities on the coasts (<10,000 people) so perhaps that is what you are referring to by small cities for which this works.

If a large number of people all have to go in the same direction at a similar time, isn't that what public transit is for? Cars are more useful when people need to go to random places at indeterminate times.

>> If a large number of people all have to go in the same direction at a similar time, isn't that what public transit is for?

Public transit only works when people live in high density areas. It makes no sense to have a transit stop where very few people live in walking distance of it. People with cars don't really want to drive to the bus stop and then catch a ride downtown, though some do. But most companies are spread out just as much as peoples homes, so business isn't even high enough density to warrant public transit in most cases.

Post reply on HN