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

181–190 of 272 posts

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#181

Post by jcranmer »

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #125
HanShotFirst wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cuomo literally harrased his own highly competent NYC Transit director into resigning, for disagreements and stealing the spotlight. The LGA airtrain is an expensive boondoggle that is thankfully looking like it will be canceled. He was into large statement projects he could slap his name on regardless of actual need because he was clearly a huge narcissist.

Why LGA airtrain would be a boondoggle? AFAIR, right now there's no way of getting to LGA without risking being stuck in the traffic for an hour.

The sensible way to get to LGA is to extend the N/W line. You get ~two more stations in the local neighborhood, plus the station at the airport itself, and it's a direct stop on the local subway anyways, no interchanges required (except as necessary to get to the N/W).

By contrast, the LGA Airtrain idea is to go the wrong way. This extra detour means that existing transit (i.e. buses) is likely to still be a faster way to get to the airport. It also requires a separate transfer, with a separate, steep (IIRC) fare for what it's doing.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#182

Post by AnthonyMouse »

wolverine876 wrote: post #87
InTheArena wrote: post #35

This misses a fundamental point - the goal of this is not to fund infrastructure - it's to fund people who vote for people who vote for infrastructure. There is zero incentive to run on time and on-budget, and every incentive to milk more government cash, so that people in power can get election contributions, that stay in power. If you also deny money to people who didn't vote for you, then all the better as well. S…

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…

> can you back any of the claims up with anything substantive? For example, that there is no difference between parties?

Corruption doesn't have a party.

What matters is the candidates. Rand Paul and Liz Cheney are in the same party, but they're not the same. Bernie Sanders and Adam Schiff are in the same party, but they're not the same.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#183

Post by jcranmer »

sofard wrote: post #8
_xnmw wrote: post #4

Because the US has an unlimited supply of the world's reserve currency, so there is no incentive to be economical.

I respectfully disagree. A lot of the capital projects mentioned in this article (like NYC subway station) are municipal or state projects, which don't have the ability to print money like the feds.

The money for these projects largely comes from the federal government anyways.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#184

Post by jonathankoren »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #157
howinteresting wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only one party is remotely supportive of trans rights.

Broad brush social issues like "trans rights" or "traditional christian values" have approximately zero effect on how politicians from each party deal with city and state level economic issues like transit.

It kind of does though. The modern Republican Party despises almost all government spending, including infrastructure. Infrastructure, and trains in particular, are communist.

"[T]he real reason for progressives' passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans' individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism."

-- George Will, 2011 https://www.newsweek.com/will-why-liberals-love-trains-68597

Federal infrastructure spending is a "communist takeover of America, via so-called infrastructure".

-- Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene, 2021 https://www.newsweek.com/gop-rep-adam-kinzinger-mocks-marjor...

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#185

Post by hardwaregeek »

I always reference the Power Broker when it comes to urban planning, but in particular I'd like to reference the language Caro uses to describe how Moses built his creations: driving, ramming, pushing. Getting something built in New York is a process of force, of sheer will, of political domineering. It's a nice sentiment to view building as a collective effort where we all come together in a democratic process and build something that we all love. But that's just not true. It's a process by which some will lose and many will win. It's a process that, for better or worse, will have long term effects that are only understood years after the fact. It's also a process that is not suited to an electoral system with candidates who leave office after a few years. You need someone who will sustain the effort for decades, who will not buck or bend, even to public will, and who can offer the institutional knowledge that the article mentions.

This does provoke a rather tricky question: Is too much democracy bad for public works? Because someone like Moses was ultimately a dictator. And granted, Moses caused horrific damage to many neighborhoods, carved racism into the city's structure, and irreparably shifted the city in favor of cars. But he also got stuff done and it's debatable that a more democratic system would have accomplished even half of what he did.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#186

Post by systemvoltage »

WhisperingShiba wrote: post #175
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.

The internet sort of centralized journalism. Local newspapers couldn’t keep up.

I remember my dad reading local printed newspaper and always keeping abreast of what issues impacted local infra, municipality effectiveness, elections and general know how about how the local gov functioned.

No one cares about it anymore. Instead, a friend of mine is asking me about Cuomo’s sexual assault case - mind you, he lives in Perth, Australia. Who cares!

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#187

Post by jonathankoren »

m0llusk wrote: post #41

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…

It's a billion dollars just to do environmental review for the Link21 Program[0] in the SF Bay[1]

[0] https://link21program.org/en

[1] https://climaterwc.com/2021/08/20/1-billion-estimated-just-t...

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#188

Post by BurningFrog »

francisofascii wrote: post #92
BurningFrog wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you double your highways and traffic stays as bad, your highway system is delivering twice as much transportation. That is a clear improvement.

Not really. Doubling your commute length is not an improvement. I have noticed places with heavier traffic tend to have shorter distances to your destination. So your total time is the same regardless.

I think you misread me.

Doubling your commute length had nothing to do with my argument.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#189

Post by earleybird »

Eelongate wrote: post #137
smnrchrds wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot of mob involvement in Quebec's construction industry. Are you saying the reason infrastructure is expensive in the US is mobs?

I doubt it's organized in any large-scale sense, but nevertheless it's very corrupt.

I would posit there is a certain amount of self organizing in an emergent behavior kinda way.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#190

Post by krapp »

jonathankoren wrote: post #184
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Broad brush social issues like "trans rights" or "traditional christian values" have approximately zero effect on how politicians from each party deal with city and state level economic issues like transit.

It kind of does though. The modern Republican Party despises almost all government spending, including infrastructure. Infrastructure, and trains in particular, are communist. "[T]he real reason for progressives' passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans' individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism." -- George Will, 2011 https://www.newsweek.com/will-why-liberals-love-trains-6859…

To be fair... and I really don't want to be fair to a lunatic who believes forest fires are caused by Jewish space lasers... Rep. Greene was stripped of all of her committee roles by unanimous (including Republican) consent due to her supporting political violence against Nancy Pelosi and the FBI. So she (at least) isn't likely to be influencing policy any time soon absent an actual Trump second term. Even the article you just posted mentions her being ridiculed by Republicans, who voted for the bill mentioned there anyway.

that said, I remember similar things being said about the Trans-Texas corridor when it was being proposed years ago, that it was just a secret way for Democrats to allow NWO troops into the US through Mexico to take over. So there definitely is a weird fear of mass transit infrastructure being some kind of socialist/communist plot among the American right. It still seems to be fringe, though. Rural voters want and depend on infrastructure spending, and it's an easy way to be seen "doing something."

Post reply on HN