Live data from Hacker News

The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

bloomberg.com

461–470 of 564 posts

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You got any credible sources on that? It sounds like one of those urban legends that people like to repeat. The Eisenhower interstate system was built in a post-nuclear world, and in a post-nuclear world it's hard to imagine there ever being a mainland invasion of the United States. The bombs would be flying before that, and there wouldn't be anything left worth invading (on any side in the conflict). Being able to u…

I don't know about the bridges specifically, but that the interstate system had an explicit national security purpose is not just well-documented, it's literally right there in the name of the law that created it: National Interstate and Defense Highways Act.

My understanding was that it was created to mobilize the military and transport resources across the continent, not to make it easy to cut off enemy routes.

But likewise, I have no references either.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#462
post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you have the luxury of picking and choosing your jobs. Most American's don't.

Slavery has been illegal for over 150 years. Many people say that they don't have the option to change jobs, yet when they get laid off or the factory where they work shuts down, they find a way to survive even if they have to make sacrifices to do so.

There has to be a name for this-- Godwin's corollary , or something.

FWIW, people living in poor rural areas, the rust belt, Reservations, etc. are surviving, true, but doing so in conditions that aren't quite first-world.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#463
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think a big unmentioned factor is probably liability and the prospect of litigation. There was an article shared to HN some time ago arguing that the kinds of cost overruns that we see so often on infrastructure projects in the US are almost endemic to common-law countries, and radically less prevalent in civil-law countries. I haven't been able to find that article again, but its conclusion has come up in many s…

Isn't Louisiana Civil/Napoleonic law? They could be compared against other states to check that theory.

Louisiana's notorious corruption issues are probably going to be an issue in drawing meaningful conclusions from such a comparison.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slavery has been illegal for over 150 years. Many people say that they don't have the option to change jobs, yet when they get laid off or the factory where they work shuts down, they find a way to survive even if they have to make sacrifices to do so.

There has to be a name for this-- Godwin's corollary , or something. FWIW, people living in poor rural areas, the rust belt, Reservations, etc. are surviving, true, but doing so in conditions that aren't quite first-world.

You mean the kind of people that can't afford a car, yet are stuck in decaying suburbia that can't afford to keep up infrastructure and where it's hard to provide social services to a far-flung population?

People for whom the American dream of a car for everyone has left them stuck in one place when they can't afford that car. People that need an expensive car because it's the only way to get to their far-flung job, or get groceries, or go a doctor's appointment? Where even if there's a bus, it only runs a few times a day and may require long transfers to go across town.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/suburbs...

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/cash-strapped-towns-un-paving-...

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#465
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally, having moved to Western Europe, I get the sense that this is the major factor as well. If I walk down the street and there is a group of workers excavating a road, there's a lot more of a relaxed attitude about fencing, walking underneath construction equipment, etc. After all - use your common sense - don't fall into the hole. If you do, isn't it kind of your own fault? Nobody's going to sue anybody. Ad…

> And America's love affair with the automobile is a well-known abusive relationship that America will never have the courage to leave. It's pretty much impossible to leave this relationship unless you live in one of the larger US cities. If you live in a suburb, rural area, or city that's not in the top 10-15 in terms of size there's literally no other option that exists or that could easily exist.

Those rural towns only exist because they are subsidized by everyone else through taxes. Close the loss-making post offices and roads servicing those towns and everyone would be forced to move. Problem solved.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#466
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but you can't simply buy a $10k radio ad praising whatever candidate you like Can I buy a $10k radio ad supporting some particular issue that the candidate also supports? Can I buy a radio station and hire talk radio hosts that argue in favor of the candidate or issues the candidate supports? >but in general the problem is somewhat solvable I think that depends on what you count as "solvable". The systems which addr…

On one hand, the beneficiaries are the smaller parties, since it allows somewhat effective participation in elections without requiring that much money - they get some free airtime (gov't funds a specific amount of airtime in largest TV & radio stations for election coverage, allocated equally for parties; I'm not sure whether all applicants or all those who got some minimum number of votes in previous elections), an…

>Who are the losers in this case? Probably the very wealthiest individuals (not "the 1%" but the top 10-100 richest people), since it limits their influence.

I would guess the opposite is probably true. The top 10-100 likely have very strong influence over the media, either due to just owning media outlets or due to business relationships (e.g. buying advertisements not related to politics). If people without those relationships can't buy advertisements, then the people who influence media in other ways benefit.

>IMHO ads supporting some issue would be fine

So it would be fine for someone to spend a few million on anti-immigrant ads a few days before an election where immigration is a key point of disagreement between the two front-runners?

>Sure, if you control important media or people then the limits can and do get bent quite a bit beyond their intent, but it still sets a limit.

Why exactly is the existence of a limit relevant? People will receive information about the candidates, and many will decide how to vote based on that information. I don't see how it matters whether the information comes from paid advertising or from control over the media. Some individuals will decide what information the masses will see. Those people have enormous influence over the election. I don't see how it matters if they got that influence by paying for it directly or indirectly.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#467

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…

The US could easily do the same. Just pay the same Chinese companies to build our roads, cities and railways.

I didn't understand your comment, can you elaborate?

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#468

Why all the guesswork about why it costs so much? That sort of thing should be readily explained by accounting: follow the money. Public infrastructure should be financially transparent.

It's worth noting the article was written in response to this lament https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/24/15681560/g... about cancelling a federal report on the topic.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The abusive relationship love-affair is the best explanation I've ever heard of cars in the USA. Just like a an abusive relationship, the car love affair still produces some good things. It's not all dark and dreary. "I hate that he comes home drunk and hits me, but he's so loving and apologetic the next morning." "I hate that I get so stressed from my daily commute, but being able to drive to the countryside on the…

> "I hate that I get so stressed from my daily commute, but being able to drive to the countryside on the weekend is so nice." I have truly never understood this line of thinking. These two are not tied together. I grew up in a car-centric city, but moved away in my teens. I've never personally owned a car and haven't had one in the household since I was 17. I hear this supposed "upside" of cars from my friends who a…

I grew up in a country with dense urban centers, where most people rely on public transit to get around even if they do have a car, because of traffic. On top of that, when I was growing up, car was very much a luxury there - most families had none, and the lucky ones had one.

I live in US now, in an area that is the edge of suburban sprawl, and I can tell you this: owning a car is very liberating on an emotional level. You can go wherever you want, when you want it, without making plans around it or having to share your space with strangers. For the first couple of years, I would go driving entirely on a whim. On a few occasions, my weekends became spontaneous multi-day road trips. It was very enjoyable, and I still rather enjoy driving in general.

I wouldn't switch back.

Yes, I know, cars come with a lot of externalities. That's not my point, though. I just wanted to show that not everyone is in a "love/hate relationship" with cars. Some of us actually do find it all genuinely enjoyable to the point where any associated inconveniences are minor, while the benefits are major. So when your solution involves taking those benefits away, don't be surprised if you get pushback.

Most of all, if you go around telling people that they don't really derive any benefit from their cars, and if only they could surrender their preconceived notions and listen to the voice of reason, it would be better for them in all or most respects - don't be surprised if your argument is dismissed out of hand.

It may well be that we need to give up cars for some important reason. But you'll have to convince me that the reason is important enough on its own merits - not because I don't have anything to lose. I know better.

Re: The US has forgotten how to do infrastructure

#470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expecting Washington to determine who is a serious candidate (and then policing their use of federal funds) is a major conflict of interest, because policymakers will almost certainly set standards that benefit the two entrenched parties. I've toyed with an alternative concept, though, that might achieve the same effect with less required oversight. The idea is a sort of non-partisan "un-PAC" -- a fundraising organiz…

I had an idea somewhere along the lines of your un-PAC. However, the one I imagined would hire lobbyists who would shmooze politicians to pass anti-lobbying laws. The PAC's job would get harder and harder the more successful it was.

Something like this?

https://mayday.us/the-plan/

Post reply on HN