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

Why We Can’t Figure Out Why Infrastructure Is So Expensive

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 221 posts

Re: Why We Can’t Figure Out Why Infrastructure Is So Expensive

#141

Post by cestith »

jedberg wrote: post #102

Before we make a report on how our costs differ from other G20 countries, how about a report on how our costs differ from ourselves 100 years ago. In 1900 it took four years to lay nine miles of subway in NYC. The second ave tunnel was just a couple miles and under construction for 12 years. That's just an example. It also took longer to build the new Eastern span of the Bay Bridge than it took to build the whole bri…

How many people died building the Brooklyn Bridge? Nobody knows for sure, but it was around 20 to 30. Could you imagine putting that many human lives into a bridge in 1967 or 2019?

I don't know death stats at all for the subway. I do know that it was three different systems operating at least partially independently of one another until about 1940 when they came together under city control.

Re: Why We Can’t Figure Out Why Infrastructure Is So Expensive

#142

Post by war1025 »

legitster wrote: post #53

Let alone cost, one thing that boggles my mind is how slow infrastructure building is in the US. In our area, a multi-billion dollar freeway or subway line will often be constructed with 5 days of a single 8-hour shift. I get that certain work needs to be done at night, but surely the work sites shouldn't sit empty for 16 hours a day! Just think about the cost of equipment being rented, the overhead that is on salary…

I'm guessing construction companies also have a desire to maintain a fairly stable set of employees. Doing a project 3x faster isn't exactly a win when there isn't 3x the amount of work to be done to sustain the operation over the long term.

People don't particularly enjoy boom / bust cycles, so finding competent employees would probably be difficult if everything was "go as fast as possible, then no work until the next contract hits". Construction is already seasonal. Making the work even more intermittent probably wouldn't work too well.

Re: Why We Can’t Figure Out Why Infrastructure Is So Expensive

#143

Post by tomohawk »

Anechoic wrote: post #69
tomohawk wrote: post #36

A family member in the DOT told me this as but one of many tales of woe. Several hundred miles of an interstate were going to be rehabbed. There was a proven technique to redo the joints between the concrete slabs, which were in good shape. A contractor was hired to do a small number of miles as a test, but they had a learning curve. The first few joints that they redid were not done well, but they rapidly improved a…

Here is another way to think about that story: DOT and their proven, reliable contractor had experience with a certain method of rehabbing the joints between concrete slabs. A new technique was tried, and the first few attempts were not done well. The new technique showed promise, but there was a concern that if the new technique failed, there would be consequences to the state for trying a new technique rather than…

I get that. However, the DOT has used the approach in other areas with great success. In many cases, the concrete roadways were put in before finite element analysis models were available or even remotely realistic. A lot of research has gone into how to repair these after the fact so that money is saved and you don't get the thumpity thump, etc.

States make their own choices, though. The DOT can only cajole them by dangling money. If the only competency in a state DOT is to cut a check, and there is not going to be any price to be paid for putting in a road that is unsafe or that does not last or that costs too much, then it is more likely that too much money will be spent.

Another related story is this relative went to Germany to confer with counterparts over there and compare notes. The Germans were laughing at them because they use the US research, but the US doesn't. We have great research spanning multiple decades, but political concerns are what end up determining how roads are built.

Re: Why We Can’t Figure Out Why Infrastructure Is So Expensive

#144

Post by Nimitz14 »

afarrell wrote: post #60
daenz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The further you are removed from "other people" with regards to "other people's money", the easier it is to waste/pocket/embezzle. Fixing that problem would go a long way.

The solution to that problem in many places is currently to have lists of approved suppliers.

And then they get comfy and loosen their standards... and when someone new comes along with a better technique it takes forever to hire them. As anybody with industry experience should know, that does not work.

Re: Why We Can’t Figure Out Why Infrastructure Is So Expensive

#145

Post by lowdose »

nsxwolf wrote: post #129
Anechoic wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is another way to think about that story: DOT and their proven, reliable contractor had experience with a certain method of rehabbing the joints between concrete slabs. A new technique was tried, and the first few attempts were not done well. The new technique showed promise, but there was a concern that if the new technique failed, there would be consequences to the state for trying a new technique rather than…

We should still be talking about this. That story fascinated me. If the media went into more detail on infrastructure beyond stories about how it's crumbling or who in congress does or doesn't want to pay for it, that could really make a difference. I would watch a nightly news show called "Infrastructure Tonight" if it existed.

It would be awesome if the fourth estate executed their role in society proper. But outlets like the WSJ have to push out an article per minute to remain relevant in the search ranking.

Maybe news is more important than just supplying entertainment and should the world take notice of UK's model with the BBC.

Re: Why We Can’t Figure Out Why Infrastructure Is So Expensive

#146

Post by paganel »

sureste wrote: post #95
aldoushuxley001 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost certainly they switched contractors because of corruption. Here in Montreal, it's well known that the mob runs the construction industry and quite frankly you're not allowed to even bid on contracts without their say so, otherwise you'll get visited for a very frank chat. So I can't speak for why infrastructure is expensive elsewhere, but atleast here in Quebec (& likely RoC) it's simply because of corruption.…

The Guardian had a so-called Concrete Week[1] earlier this year when they published articles related to the concrete industry and its impact. One of the articles [2] touched briefly on the corruption related to the building and concrete industry. I assure you, these mafias exist in a lot of places. Odebrecht has entangled governments of Peru and Brazil with corruption here in South America. I would be interested wher…

Teh French cement company Lafarge did business with jihadis in Syria during the current civil war, including with the Islamic State [1]. That's corruption on a whole new level, as I'm 100% sure the decision to conduct this type of business was taken at the company's HQ in France.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/28/lafarge-charge...

Re: Why We Can’t Figure Out Why Infrastructure Is So Expensive

#147

Post by spenczar5 »

nova22033 wrote: post #113

This article linked from another Josh Barro piece tells you exactly why it's so expensive https://www.city-journal.org/html/fifteen-stories-under-1410... In Britain and France, only the “miners”—or tunnelers—work in unions similar to America’s. Contractors hire other workers largely as they wish. The jobs pay well but not American-construction-union well. In New York, everyone works by the same union rules, which inc…

If it that were simple, the GAO report mentioned in the article would surely have found it. It's not just labor cost.

Re: Why We Can’t Figure Out Why Infrastructure Is So Expensive

#148

Post by seanmcdirmid »

cestith wrote: post #140
thehappypm wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China, especially a few decades ago, was so poor that eminent domain was a complete non-issue. Combined with a fairly authoritarian government system, building a train line faced basically no resistance. In the US, it's almost the opposite. The places where public transit is most needed are the most highly valuable, densely populated areas, where eminent domain is a nightmare. In the US, all of our highly populated a…

One of China's more ambitious solutions to this was newly founded, planned metropolises where no major city had previously stood.

Aka the infamous ghost cities?

Re: Why We Can’t Figure Out Why Infrastructure Is So Expensive

#149

Post by spenczar5 »

ambicapter wrote: post #64
yellowstuff wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the basic idea of investigatory journalism is that the journalist is not necessarily an expert in the topic they write about, but is good at finding informed sources, getting overlapping information from all of them, and determining who can be trusted on which facts.

Getting overlapping information seems like a good play, but the determination of who can be trusted on which facts (again, as a non-expert) seems like it'd be drowning in personal bias.

What is your alternative proposal, if you were to (say) do research on the likely future of US-China trade policy, to make it concrete?

Re: Why We Can’t Figure Out Why Infrastructure Is So Expensive

#150

Post by Anechoic »

tomohawk wrote: post #143
Anechoic wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is another way to think about that story: DOT and their proven, reliable contractor had experience with a certain method of rehabbing the joints between concrete slabs. A new technique was tried, and the first few attempts were not done well. The new technique showed promise, but there was a concern that if the new technique failed, there would be consequences to the state for trying a new technique rather than…

I get that. However, the DOT has used the approach in other areas with great success. In many cases, the concrete roadways were put in before finite element analysis models were available or even remotely realistic. A lot of research has gone into how to repair these after the fact so that money is saved and you don't get the thumpity thump, etc. States make their own choices, though. The DOT can only cajole them by…

However, the DOT has used the approach in other areas with great success.

And I get that - in fact I live it. I'm a government contractor that works on transportation projects and it's frustrating when a particular agency doesn't want to use an innovative technique or design that has literally been successful on another project that's only a few miles away but project managers don't want to be testifying in front of their state legislatures about wasting tax payer money with a new fangled approach when the tried and true could have been used. Magazines like Engineering News-Record and ASME/ASCE journals bang the drum for concepts like "state of good repair" and ROI, but as long as the public will hang a politician or project manager out to try for an unsuccessful project (or worse, a new technique that kills someone), project managers will route around risk.

Again, I'm not saying this is why US projects are so expensive, but there is often a rational through process behind seemingly irrational decisions.

(yes, there are times where incompetency and/or corruption are also to blame, but IME it's much less often than portrayed in this thread).

Post reply on HN