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

Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 272 posts

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#171

Post by zdragnar »

munk-a wrote: post #103
criddell wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need to spend more money creating better metropolitan areas that people want to live in, rather than using tax payer money to support fewer and fewer people. I suspect the current trend is in the opposite direction. If self-driving cars ever become a real thing, it's all over for team urbanization. If there was unlimited money, how would you even start to fix cities? A big part of the attraction to living in the…

> If self-driving cars ever become a real thing, it's all over for team urbanization. Urbanization is more than just hatred of vehicles - Europe has managed to development walkable cities where cars are significantly less convenient than other modes of transport - even if the cars are automated they're going to continue to be suboptimal compared to well planned and zoned cities. At the heart of the issue is whether a…

> outside of the central south

That's an odd take. Most of the northern states (excepting the temperate coastline) get cold enough during the winter that a 5 minute drive is far better than a 10 minute walk. When the polar vortex comes through and it is a windy night, a 10 minute walk is short enough to get frostbite on exposed skin.

Then, 90-100 degree summer days aren't uncommon, except the humidity makes them more dangerous because you can sweat all you want, but it wont evaporate to cool you down.

Some cities- Minneapolis and St. Paul- have indoor walkways and climate controlled sky bridges for pedestrians, but they're pretty primarily used for business people's lunchtime, since they're fairly limited in where you can actually get to.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#172

Post by rendang »

earthscienceman wrote: post #62
ska wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a mistake to think of european unions and american unions as "the same thing". Relationships with unions in the US seem much more adversarial than there, on average. As you say, there are politics, labor relations, etc. in europe too - I wonder if they are just better at cooperating on this sort of project for some reason?

What? This could only be so naively said by someone who has never lived in a heavily prop labor socialist country like France. Les grèves are terribly adversarial and a near constant aspect of labor negotiations. The only way they could be considered better, in the way you imply, is that the unions are considered something to negotiate with instead of something to destroy.

France is known for its aggressive unions, but aren't Germany and the Nordics known for more cooperative labor relations?

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#173

Post by dr_dshiv »

drak0n1c wrote: post #168
chrisseaton wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> another contractor had to come and put the connector on the cable ... severely warned about the consequences This kind of job moating and threats is a union thing isn't it?

Yes, my partner was a conference planner and whenever they had one in NYC in the Time offices their team wasn't allowed to adjust tables by themselves, everything had to be done by formal work order tickets and only union hands could touch anything, even equipment they owned and brought in themselves. Coincidentally, this new infrastructure bill has union requirements for any EV work.

Unions get a bad rap. They don’t have to be bad. Everyone should have an incentive for efficiency.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#174

Post by analog31 »

Just as with health care, when everybody is accusing someone else of gouging us, chances are, everybody is gouging us. I'm curious, do other countries handle as much of public construction with as many layers of private contractors as we do?

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#175

Post by WhisperingShiba »

systemvoltage wrote: post #18

It’s dysfunctional on purpose. Media is busy with identity politics and trumpism, no checks and balances with efficiency of the government. Doesn’t bring in the clicks. Local media is extinct so local municipalities get a free pass.

Uh oh things are not looking good for our fair nation.

Fortunately it seems like China isnt doing the best either, but in other ways. Hopefully we fall together.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#176

Post by zdragnar »

wilkommen wrote: post #113
criddell wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need to spend more money creating better metropolitan areas that people want to live in, rather than using tax payer money to support fewer and fewer people. I suspect the current trend is in the opposite direction. If self-driving cars ever become a real thing, it's all over for team urbanization. If there was unlimited money, how would you even start to fix cities? A big part of the attraction to living in the…

Nearly all of the noise pollution in cities is due to cars and trucks. Reducing the number of cars and trucks on the road in cities by developing viable alternatives to driving (like walking and biking and light rail), allowing cities to build denser, and then restricting non-emergency, non-delivery car traffic in those dense areas would pretty much fix the affordable housing crisis and traffic and the sprawl problem…

Lol. Car horns and engines add a fair bit, but from my experience, sanitation trucks, delivery trucks, light Rail and busses make the most nuisance noise, followed closely by morons blaring bass as they drive.

It'll be pretty hard to have a city without most of that, and anyone who likes blaring bass from their car will just go old school and carry it with them.

Oh, and neighbors throwing their monthly party, complete with bouncy castle and loud music, loud arguments, and dogs barking, and construction crews, and all sorts.

Sharing walls is torture if you are sensitive to noise pollution.

IME traffic was pretty far down the list of city noise pollution that actually bothered me.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#177

Post by amalcon »

throwawaygh wrote: post #153
amalcon wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The particular project highlighted in the article isn't one of those, though. Somerville (one of the cities reached by the extension) has the highest population density in the state of Massachusetts, and I think it's something like top 20 in the United States by that metric. This is not an "even more spread out populace", it's linking a reasonably dense bedroom community to a regional commercial hub.

Somerville is not a bedroom community. It's not even really a suburb. It's more analogous to a city neighborhood that happens to be under different jurisdiction for historical reasons. You can walk from Somerville to fidelity's headquarters, Harvard, MIT, all the FAANG offices, Amgen/Biogen/AstriskGen, etc. There's definitely stuff more far flung and less dense within the city limits of Boston and/or on the Orange an…

Maybe I've been using that terminology wrong; I'd meant something along the lines of "primarily residential annex of a city". I didn't mean to imply that it's a long distance or low density (in fact, I specifically emphasized Somerville's relatively high density), or that it doesn't have its own identity -- it definitely does. Somerville (and to a lesser extent Medford/Charlestown/Watertown/Quincy) is just where you go if you want to live in that area but can't or won't pay Boston/Cambridge/Brookline rent.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#178

Post by 908B64B197 »

markus_zhang wrote: post #105
wolverine876 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen these cynical rants many times, but can you back any of the claims up with anything substantive? For example, that there is no difference between parties? It's important, because it disarms us; if we don't differentiate between the more and less corrupt, we can't improve the situation. There is greed and corruption in the world, but that's not all there is. There are plenty of people who want to do a good j…

Maybe unrelated but there was a report about the construction related corruption in Quebec. I read it back in the year 2015 and there was a lot of interesting information. For example, many construction projects are given to favored parties and government engineers who take care of those projects will make sure that outsiders do not get the tender offer. Occasionally someone from outside of the circle makes a compete…

I wonder what's the plan to get the money back and prosecute.

It's rather incredible they were able to root cause costs overrun so precisely.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#179

Post by zdragnar »

caeril wrote: post #80
mikewarot wrote: post #23

Once the US had railroad companies that laid rail at a mile per day (mostly crap rail, but enough to count), that was when the incentives were all aligned, and a huge amount of resources were mobilized and ready to deploy. Once the US pulled of the completely absurd task of putting a man on the moon and then returning him safely to earth, in less than a decade. All the incentives were aligned, it had public support,…

> pulled of the completely absurd task of putting a man on the moon and then returning him safely to earth, in less than a decade At a congressional allocation level, this was all pork, too. The vast majority of this project went to politically-connected contractors, subcontractors, etc. Not much has changed, except for one critical factor: We were competent in the 20th century. All of the engineers, machinists, meta…

Putting a man on the moon was relatively simple in comparison, actually.

All the resources focused down to a single task, a single vessel, and a single mission.

In comparison, there are countless jurisdictions and hundreds of millions of lives being effected, plus well established property lines that need to be redrawn all over the place.

I'm not saying I approve of how much it costs to do reasonable infrastructure related projects at all, but the meme of "things were so much better back then" has never not been old.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#180

Post by geodel »

carabiner wrote: post #121
danny_codes wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's entirely politics and policy. California has an extremely cumbersome legal baggage that drags against public projects. Strong public unions, poorly implemented environmental protection laws, and a legal code that enables rampant NIMBYism are, IMO, the main limiting factors for Californian growth. We could today pass legislation that circumvented all of this nonsense, and we would see HSR rapidly built across…

Yeah, and I know China + civil rights etc. I wonder what specific civil rights abuses occurred in building their HSR? Was it similar to the US use of eminent domain to acquire land for building the interstate highways? Maybe we should bring that back. I'm seriously in awe of the Chinese government these days. In 30 years, they went from a raw labor and manufacturing country, to landing rovers on Mars. They built new…

I think the American individual pursuit of happiness is not compatible with Chinese good for society approach. Now it feels good to think that one can combine all the good stuff from different systems and make a best system but somehow it is not possible.
Post reply on HN