5 ms·
A couple factors (not exclusive): - Greater local control over government decision making. This cuts both ways, but there are a couple specific ways it makes t
by alexhutcheson 10y ago
A couple factors (not exclusive):
- Greater local control over government decision making. This cuts both ways, but there are a couple specific ways it makes transit projects hard to push through. First, it inserts lots of veto points into the process, which a determined minority can use to block the project. If the benefits are diffuse (a more transit accessible city), but the perceived costs are concentrated (they would tear up the street in front of my house, etc.), then it's hard to get the necessary political support to overcome all the vetoes. Second, the politicians making the decisions are accountable to the residents of that area, who aren't always the intended beneficiaries of the project. For example, a rail link that brings commuters to an area might be a huge benefit to the commuteers, but a net negative to the residents.
- Infrastructure decisions are path-dependent. It's hard, both technically and politically, to introduce transit to a community that hasn't been previously dependent on it. Neighborhoods built with cars in mind might not have enough density to support great service, and built-up, expensive neighborhoods (where the jobs are) are often prohibitively expensive to build in. Politically, it's tricky because neighborhoods and regions are going to be mostly full of people for whom the existing infrastructure is already good enough - they wouldn't be there otherwise. New projects are more likely to benefit new people - people who relocate because the new service opens up lifestyle/commuting possibilities that weren't possible before.
- High construction costs. There's ongoing debate about why this is (I won't get into it), but US cities generally have higher construction costs than other developed countries, even for similar projects. 2011 post with some concrete data: https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-rail-construction-costs/ https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-r...
- m_mueller 10y agoHoly crap... these numbers are absolutely nuts. 8.1 billion dollars for 2 kilometers of subway tunnel? What are they doing? Switzerland has just opened a 57km tunnel through the alps, some of the most difficult sediment to tunnel through, for ..... just over 10 billion. That's 175M/km or a factor of 23 less, in one of most high priced countries in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel So... too much veto power and too much corruption (construction lobbying) leading to enormously inflated prices?
- npunt 10y agoNot that I disagree, but to be fair, its way easier to drill into a mountain than it is to drill under people's homes.
- m_mueller 10y agoI assume so, but it's not all that clear to me why - if the tunneling vibrations are an issue, just dig deeper? The Gotthard base itself had massive problems with loose sediments - alpine sediments are vertical, so they change abruptly every few meters. You could also compare with the Durchmesser line in Zurich [1, 2, German]: ~2.1Bn USD, up from 1.9Bn projected at project start, 4.8km tunnel, 9.6km total length of new railway beneath, above and alongside urban housing, includes a new underground train station, 7 years to build from start to finish. You can also compare it to Tokyo. 5-10x cheaper to build their metro lines while their GDP per capita is only 37% less than the US. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durchmesserlinie_Altstetten–Zürich_HB–Oerlikon https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durchmesserlinie_Altstetten–Zü... [2] http://www.sbb.ch/content/dam/sbb/de/pdf/sbb-konzern/ueber-die-sbb/projekte/ausbau-schienennetz/DML_factsheet_weinbergtunnel_web.pdf http://www.sbb.ch/content/dam/sbb/de/pdf/sbb-konzern/ueber-d...
- ubernostrum 10y agoDigging under an existing city is hard. You have to thread your way through deep-driven building foundations, dodge or relocate underground pipes and cables, and maintain enough integrity to keep everything above from sinking while you do it. And (please don't take this the wrong way) a lot of places outside the US have been easier to build in because, over the past century, those places had to be completely rebuilt anyway following the massive devastation of two world wars. The US escaped that devastation on its own soil, but is paying an ironic price in that now it's difficult or even impossible to retrofit more modern infrastructure into our cities, because we still have all the old infrastructure that never got destroyed.
- kalleboo 10y ago