51–60 of 272 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO #2 takes the cake (rest is all icing)
I'm leaning towards #3. There just doesn't seem to be any real incentive for governments to look for cost savings, like it's all Monopoly money.
Why aren't contracts to build the projects tightly written to avoid cost ballooning? When a service is to be provided at a certain cost, it should be provided at certain cost. Some contingencies should be built in (if something gets discovered that was unexpected) but how on earth does every municipal project seem to have so much invested in budget oversight and contractors overbilling or needing overtime to make thi…
> Why aren't contracts to build the projects tightly written to avoid cost ballooning? Because no legitimate construction firm will take on a project where they are saddled with 100% liability for overruns. Not without very generously padding their estimated costs, that is. Which will make them lose the initial bid. A fly-by-night operator may want to take that project, and when things go sour, they'll leave you with…
That, however, would be socialism, so it can't be done, even though it's done on a smaller scale in every US city for issues starting at road repair and going on up.
The NY ex-governor Cuomo. He's not without dark spots, but a lot of infrastructure projects have been running during his time in the office: Moynihan hall train, LIRR double-track to Ronkonkoma and so on.
Nevertheless, it was decided that moral qualities of the governor are more important than his ability to push projects to completion.
So nope, Mr. Cuomo, you're not perfect. Get out. And there is a queue of smart, nice, efficient and highly moral people lined up outside to become NY governors.
I am of the opinion that continuing to build out all these long 'runs' of infrastructure to serve a even more spread out populace is a dead end. Where I live we spent tens of billions expanding highway infrastructure, and it has not improved the lives of anyone meaningfully, traffic is as bad as its ever been. We need to spend more money creating better metropolitan areas that people want to live in, rather than usin…
However, that's not the only factor at play here. Part of thing that makes spreading out the population look like a reasonable strategy is the mess involved in building in existing cities. A lot here is "soft" corruption - local government treats public grants as candy to give out to their friends and particular processes described in the article are just ways to do this.
I was a management consultant ages ago and worked on large capital projects. In my experience (as the article mentions) it was a mix of: 1. Red tape & public "input" 2. Layers of contractors and subcontractors, each taking their slice 3. No real incentives for governments to be cost sensitive. Usually capital projects last well into the next administration. 4. Too many cooks in the kitchen and consultations
I am of the opinion that continuing to build out all these long 'runs' of infrastructure to serve a even more spread out populace is a dead end. Where I live we spent tens of billions expanding highway infrastructure, and it has not improved the lives of anyone meaningfully, traffic is as bad as its ever been. We need to spend more money creating better metropolitan areas that people want to live in, rather than usin…
This article is toxic garbage. The best example of this is how the NYC Second Avenue subway project is cited as an example of costs out of control. This project was initially proposed around a hundred years ago and over time was repeatedly rejected as being far too expensive to ever make sense and then raised again and again for consideration. At the time the work started there was a hundred years of literature going…
> Mile for mile, studies show the U.S. spends more than all but five other countries in the world on public transit, and more on roads than any other country that discloses spending data.
My pet theory: because this is not a priority? The NY ex-governor Cuomo. He's not without dark spots, but a lot of infrastructure projects have been running during his time in the office: Moynihan hall train, LIRR double-track to Ronkonkoma and so on. Nevertheless, it was decided that moral qualities of the governor are more important than his ability to push projects to completion. So nope, Mr. Cuomo, you're not per…
I was a management consultant ages ago and worked on large capital projects. In my experience (as the article mentions) it was a mix of: 1. Red tape & public "input" 2. Layers of contractors and subcontractors, each taking their slice 3. No real incentives for governments to be cost sensitive. Usually capital projects last well into the next administration. 4. Too many cooks in the kitchen and consultations
These are all things, but they're things in other countries, too. France has strong unions and subcontractors and bureaucrats and all of that. And yet it costs less there.
This article is toxic garbage. The best example of this is how the NYC Second Avenue subway project is cited as an example of costs out of control. This project was initially proposed around a hundred years ago and over time was repeatedly rejected as being far too expensive to ever make sense and then raised again and again for consideration. At the time the work started there was a hundred years of literature going…