Live data from Hacker News

How Berlin’s Futuristic Airport Became a $6B Embarrassment

bloomberg.com

41–50 of 210 posts

Re: How Berlin’s Futuristic Airport Became a $6B Embarrassment

#41
post #7
post #2

Building an airport always is. Often it takes more money and a few decades to appreciate it. D/FW airport was a nightmare when it was built but it's pretty nice today. Denver's airport had tons of issues as well. Then again this seems on a much higher level of disaster, but should be familiar to anyone building large government software systems.

Denver still has the issue that it's a 20 mile drive from downtown out of some misguided belief that the city was just going to instantly grow out to it.

DIA was built so far away due to complaints of noise from the locals. The distance was intentional, however dumb.

Re: How Berlin’s Futuristic Airport Became a $6B Embarrassment

#42
post #8

But is it only BER? As mentioned int the article - what about Stuttgart 21 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuttgart_21 ) etc.? It is possible that these sites exist as new financial "loopholes", transferring tax-money from the government to private contractors without much oversight.

Montreal had a different sort of airport fiasco in the 1960s and 70s: Mirabel Airport was supposed to replace the Dorval Airport as the "Eastern Gateway to Canada" for human travellers.

Today, Mirabel is mostly a cargo airport. And the terminal is being demolished...

Meanwhile, Dorval was expanded several times. Also, it was renamed the Trudeau airport.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montr%C3%A9al%E2%80%93Mirabel_...

Re: How Berlin’s Futuristic Airport Became a $6B Embarrassment

#43

I wonder what kind of austerity will be imposed on the poor Berliners for wasting so much money /s

It's a bit more complicated since the airport is a joint venture between Berlin, Brandenburg and the Federal Government which all hold roughly a third of the shares. And while it's an embarrassing waste of money the german constitution stipulates in Art. 109 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GG that starting 2016 the federal government cannot exceed 0.35% of the GDP in new debts and and starting 2020 the state governments are not allowed to take on new debts at all. So we'll have the austerity you're asking for soon enough.

Re: How Berlin’s Futuristic Airport Became a $6B Embarrassment

#44
post #31

"At the very moment Merkel and her allies are hectoring the Greeks about their profligacy, the airport’s cost, borne by taxpayers, has tripled to €5.4 billion." So, which country does Germany want to borrow money from in order to cover the wasteful spending?

Not quite sure if it is still the case, but not so long ago Germany was borrowing money at negative interest rate.

No, you got that wrong. Either their interest rates were compared to their growth, which may yield a positive return or you're mixing things up with the European Central Bank's decision to reduce the interest rate on deposits.

Edit: mea culpa. Looks like you're right : http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/84a1ddc8-bce5-11e4-9902-00144feab7...

Re: How Berlin’s Futuristic Airport Became a $6B Embarrassment

#45
post #7
post #2

Building an airport always is. Often it takes more money and a few decades to appreciate it. D/FW airport was a nightmare when it was built but it's pretty nice today. Denver's airport had tons of issues as well. Then again this seems on a much higher level of disaster, but should be familiar to anyone building large government software systems.

Denver still has the issue that it's a 20 mile drive from downtown out of some misguided belief that the city was just going to instantly grow out to it.

When you build an airport near the city, it becomes impossible to expand. San Diego is a good example of this, a single-runway airport that's surrounded by the bay, I-5, the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, and a residential neighborhood. It's running near capacity and impossible to expand. There's simply nowhere to go.

Re: How Berlin’s Futuristic Airport Became a $6B Embarrassment

#46

I realize that higher standards of fire and other safety measures make these systems more complicated, but you would think that with all the technology we have today for planning, engineering, communication, documentation, modeling and simulation - that these types of fiascos would become rarer and rarer. I wonder if anyone has looked at large scale projects like these over the last 100 years and determined what impl…

We have a lot of powerful software for building design these days, Autodesk's Revit suite being the big one. But as in software development, better tools just ends up meaning that clients demand things faster and cheaper, rather than better.

There are some classes of problems that it definitely helps solve, like keeping the structural engineer and HVAC engineer from design conflicts where a beam and a duct go through each other. But everything needs to be done yesterday, so I'm not surprised that problems that can't be automatically identified are able to slip through.

> “The people responsible for technical oversight were saying, ‘We cannot do this within this amount of time,’ and Schwarz would answer, ‘I don’t care,’ ” he says.

Pretty much sums it up.

EDIT: There's no excuse for the exposed high voltage wiring alongside the low voltage alarm systems though, that sounds like a contractor screwed up. I don't know the German electrical code, but generally in the US anything over 60V is classified as "class 1" wiring and it goes in a conduit. Typically this is a grounded metal tube so that you can't accidentally pound a nail through it, and if anything shorts to the conduit there's a safe path to ground until overcurrent protection trips.

And if for some reason you have lower voltage "class 2" wiring running in the same conduit, those wires (and whatever else they split off to) are now considered class 1, even if they're only low current 24V signal wires or similar. They can no longer leave conduit and go anywhere else, on the off chance that it shorts to the line voltage wires it's sharing conduit with.

Re: How Berlin’s Futuristic Airport Became a $6B Embarrassment

#47

> "Professor, let me understand this," Loge said. "You are talking about having 800 people wearing orange vests, sitting on camping stools, holding thermoses filled with coffee, and shouting into their cell phones, 'Open the fire door'?" Loge refused the airport an operating license. Schwarz stood up and walked out without another word. Easily the best part of the article.

I got a good chuckle out of the sentence:

"Then they turned to the fire prevention system. Smoke now channels upward through chimneys, in accordance with the laws of physics."

Re: How Berlin’s Futuristic Airport Became a $6B Embarrassment

#48
Bent Flyvbjerg studies these "megaprojects" and offers various explanations why a) they are being conducted in the first place despite the fact that b) they are usually any combination of over budget, behind schedule or below expectations in terms of their benefits.

Here is an interview with him on EconTalk about the subject: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/05/bent_flyvbjerg.html

Re: How Berlin’s Futuristic Airport Became a $6B Embarrassment

#49

There is a joke in my country (Poland) about every little town needing: -an airport -an aquapark -a huge sport stadion All of them as a way to transfer some state/town money to political cronies. The sad part is that some of those make sense as an infrastructure improvement (most doesn't though, at least here) so it's easier to sell the idea to people. The way the business is done is to just pay 30%-50% more than it…

That's for the Amateurs, Professionals do a whole World Cup

And to get into the hall of fame, you do an Olympics.
Post reply on HN