15 ms·

When is the last time America built any impressive infrastructure? I'd say in the 70s. Most airports, most of the interstate highway network, most subway syste

• Feniks 9y ago
  Taxes. Every politician in the last 30 years got elected by promising lower taxes. Literally nobody in the US has ever asked: if taxes are cut how will it impact the budget? All people want is lower taxes.
  • smileysteve 9y ago
    and military spending.
    • briandear 9y ago
      Not true. US military spending as a percentage of GDP is comparable to many countries. In sheer dollars, it’s vastly more, but then so is the GDP. It isn’t like MTA money is being diverted to buy tanks.
      • mullen 9y ago
        No true at all. Of the developed industrialized western nations, not only is the US the highest by total dollars ($611b), it is also the highest by percentage of GDP (3.3% GDP).
  • SirensOfTitan 9y ago
    The personal tax rate in the US seems generally on par with the EU. The United States certainly does not present as an outlier by any measure in this aspect. From what I have read, the particular issue around public transit surrounds cultural trends around city population. The middle class left cities in droves after WW2, leaving city budgets starved (I believe the MTA's ridership peaked shortly after WW2 as well). A half century of neglect can do a lot of damage to infrastructure. Additionally, public investment in infrastructure is not expedient for politicians with a focus on the short term. Investment in the MTA could take years to reap benefits--and most riders will just remember whomever pushed that investment as the individual who closed down the L train for a year. A long term focus makes no sense whenever you just want to get elected for the next term.
    • Feniks 9y ago
      https://www.businessinsider.nl/trump-tax-plan-federal-deficit-2017-10/?international=true&r=US https://www.businessinsider.nl/trump-tax-plan-federal-defici... Americans are YOLO. Part of me is in awe, there are rules against increasing the deficit and politicians are just wiping their ass with it.
  • francisofascii 9y ago
    I would agree. The Federal gas tax was not raised since 1993. People love the idea of new transit systems and infrastructure but will freak out if gas prices go up a few cents.
• zwischenzug 9y ago
  This was my experience of the US as well. Not only the state of the roads, but the poor quality of the buildings, and the incredible number of power cuts. It was more reminiscent to me of the third world than the richest country in the world.
  • Xorlev 9y ago
    US is a huge place, so experiences don’t generalize well. You’ll have to state the region and probably the city you visited for your statement to have any meaning.
    • alistairSH 9y ago
      Agreed. My home (outside DC) rarely has power cuts - maybe once every 3rd year during a heavy snowfall or other major weather event. And it's almost always repaired within an hour or two. My office has more frequent outages, but that's due to heavy construction in the area (shouldn't happen, but it does, I guess).
  • jchrome 9y ago
    You've got to be more specific. I've lived in NYC for almost a decade and I think the power went out 3 times and that's always been due to a hurricane. Power cuts are not something I've had to deal with in any significant manner in anyplace I've lived in the USA (and I've lived all over).
    • zwischenzug 9y ago
      NYC, have also done road trips up and down east and west coast. Never been to the middle. I think I've experienced 3 power cuts in the UK in my entire life.
  • bogomipz 9y ago
    >"This was my experience of the US as well. Not only the state of the roads, but the poor quality of the buildings, and the incredible number of power cuts." Power cuts? This comment can not be taken seriously. Power cuts in the US are quite exceptional and generally concern circumstance such natural disasters or a severe heat wave. An "incredible number"? Yeah right.
• dmitriid 9y ago
  Not only the US. It seems the rest of the world managed to build most of their infrastructure in the 60s and 70s. Now if you look at large infrastructure projects, they are much more expensive, and proceed at a glacial pace. Except in China, of course.
  • jacobush 9y ago
    I (half-seriously) blame computers. We can do so much now, with computers! So we do much... Before, someone drew a line on a map, and that was that. Any problems had to be dealt with downstream.
    • Mountain_Skies 9y ago
      Which bring up the subject of visible versus (mostly) invisible infrastructure. Large new hydroelectric projects are now rare but compare communications infrastructure of now to that of even the turn of the century and one can see a huge amount of spending and capacity taking place constantly. But buried fiber isn't seen, it's pretty much magic to most people. Cell and microwave towers only get noticed when they're an eyesore but otherwise go unnoticed. It's this invisible infrastructure where much of our investment now goes.
  • GuB-42 9y ago
    I live in France, and I was born in the early 80s and I can tell you that a lot has been done during my lifetime regarding infrastructure : high speed train lines, highways, subways, tunnels, bridges, etc... And it didn't stop. I am not trying to tell that France does better than other countries, I think it's not even close. It is just that I know it best. I think we tend to take everything that works for granted and forget about the difficulties in the past, only talking about present issues. Maybe the convenient road you are using every day didn't exist 20 years ago, maybe it was delayed several years and went way overbudget, but now, you feel like it has always been here, only paying attention when there is a problem.
  • frik 9y ago
    This nails it. Most first world countries managed to build most of their concrete infrastructure in the 60s and 70s. Unfortunately, little since then and maintainance isn't so easy. It's impressive what China builds - they were decades behind but times changed. A huge parts of Shanghai city were rice field until 1990. Most skyscrappers were build since 2005. And now Shanghai has probably more skyscrappers than any other city in the world. Impressive also the amount of 2 or 3 story highways and the high speed trains.
• golemiprague 9y ago
  Because in the mid 60' the immigration laws changed and the leftist thinking took over, the whole protestant hard working American ethos was erased within couple of decades and now America is just another miserable hodgepodge of tribes who can't unite even to decide about transgender toilets let alone have the vision and capacity to run huge infrastructure projects.
  • jacobush 9y ago
    True I guess, except for the part where it was a hodgepodge of tribes before the 60s too? Or am I missing something.
    • vog 9y ago
      And except that the "protestant hard working American ethos" (perhaps "protestant/puritan work ethic" was meant?) somehow leads to increased productivity - which it doesn't. Oh, and except for the perception that the USA is very leftist. Really, from a European point of view, it's quite the reverse.
      • golemiprague 9y ago
        The 60's changed America and the leftists thinking took over the media, academia and culture. The fact that America doesn't have the same social service as in Europe is not the issue here. It is the destruction of the American homogenous culture and replacement of values.
  • linschn 9y ago
    This is so stupid it's not even wrong. Nixon, Ford and Reagan were not leftists, and Reagonomics is not characterized by a love of public spending on infrastructure.
    • golemiprague 9y ago
      Not talking about the government, I am aware of that, talking about the culture and values.
• FanaHOVA 9y ago
  As usual, exaggerations on HN about how much Europe is better than the US. All of this is simply not true. I was born and raised in Rome and traveled through most of Europe and the US. There's highs and lows in both of them. Come to Rome and rent a car for a few days, you'll wish to be in Manhattan again.
  • Milner08 9y ago
    I've driven in both. Rome is bad, but I would still say the roads are worse in Manhattan.
    • wwosik 9y ago
      My only issue with roads in Rome were drivers. Apart from that Italian roads are rather good if expensive. Note I havent been to the south of Rome
    • apaprocki 9y ago
      The roads are mostly resurfaced on a schedule that has them resurfacing nearly every day of the year. There is just so much more abuse on Manhattan asphalt from large trucks, heavy trucks, cars, construction, etc. that any given individual point can appear run-down, but then look fresh and new as soon as it is cycled through. You don't see many 16m trucks abusing streets in Rome :) http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/motorist/resurfintro.shtml http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/motorist/resurfintro.shtml
      • spac 9y ago
        You don't see many trucks abusing the streets of Rome, only in certain areas. That said, I generally actually find the pavement in Manhattan better than in Rome.
      • dionidium 9y ago
        > There is just so much more abuse on Manhattan asphalt from large trucks, heavy trucks, cars "Abuse" is the right word. Perhaps it's worth rethinking how much of this abuse we allow. Giant trucks parading through Manhattan at will, tearing up the pavement, endangering cyclists and pedestrians, and generally lowering quality of life for residents is a policy choice, not some natural and unchangeable fact about the world.
• briandear 9y ago
  Not generally like that in mug of Texas. Houston proper has some questionable roads — but that has been due to a series of mayors that are more interested in farmers markets and “pocket parks” than actually doing the dirty work of actually running a city. The state of Texas has great roads. Far better than anything you see in places like NY, NJ or other states with Byzantine labor agreements. I live in France now and the highways here in the south (such as the A7 are extremely good — and generally privately managed (our area is run by Da Vinci) while up near the Dijon area the roads get pretty bad by comparison (highways there are run by a different group,) while in Germany, I was generally unimpressed by the Autobahn — especially driving from Hamburg to Berlin. The southern French autoroutes are luxurious by comparison. Infrastructure in Paris is a bit decayed, especially the RER going to CDG airport, while the PATH train in the NYC area is actually really nice. Florida roads are generally really nice and historically, Louisiana roads were pretty bad — you noticed it immediately crossing from Texas — that was a result of years of the Feds denying federal funding for highways because Louisiana refused to be bullied into a 21 year old drinking age. The Houston airport is nice — a lot of work done in the 1990s and a lot of renovation done recently funded by United Airlines. SFO is nice too. CDG in Paris is a shithole airport compared to Frankfurt and SFO and Houston. Heathrow seems pretty nice, at least Terminal 2 but they don’t compare to Seoul Incheon airport. My point is that generalized statements about the American infrastructure aren’t generally fair since the US isn’t a monolithic organization — things vary widely due to local history. Heavily union places like NY and NJ generally have far worse infrastructure than places that aren’t so influenced by corrupt union “machine” politics. When labor bosses and the mafia have material control of infrastructure politics, you are going to have sluggish development. Another problem in New York is that’s you have seemingly dozens of agencies all stepping on each other: you have the City, the Port Authority, the states of NJ and New York, individual boroughs, multiple unions and then the Feds on top of that — and everyone in that chain has to get paid. It’s a mess.
  • kodablah 9y ago
    > My point is that generalized statements about the American infrastructure aren’t generally fair since the US isn’t a monolithic organization Very true, but I'd say when talking about roads, that goes for the state level in places like Texas and even down to the metropolitan level. Where I live, there are 75 mph high quality privately-managed roads close to terrible ones.
• bogomipz 9y ago
  >"In the middle of Manhattan some streets were in a state that in Europe you would only witness in the Balkans or in rural areas." This is complete nonsense.
• stult 9y ago
  Well, you're ignoring massive swathes of infrastructure types. Containerization has led to a complete revamping of US ports during that period. The electrical infrastructure has been massively upgraded, including a huge decrease in coal fired plants. While passenger trains haven't been improved at all, freight train usage has grown rapidly and the already very extensive rail lines have been maintained (conflicting demands between passenger and freight being one of the major limitations on high speed rail). The entire internet was built during the period you specify. As was a nationwide cell network with nearly universal coverage in populated areas, despite a much larger area and lower population density than comparably developed European countries. The GPS constellation was deployed and opened up to the public. Automated banking and payment systems. Etc etc. Not all infrastructure consists of roads, bridges, and tunnels.
  • exceptionalism 9y ago
    None of that infrasture is unique, impressive or better done than in Europe. The point is that Europe did all that and more. By the looks of it Europe just does public infrastructure better.
    • stult 9y ago
      Well, that wasn't the point I was responding to. I was replying to this claim, "When is the last time America built any impressive infrastructure? I'd say in the 70s." But to your point, I would argue that US achievements on the internet and cell networks are more impressive than Europe's because unlike Europeans Americans invented those technologies from scratch. And other than Russia, the US is the only country with a GPS infrastructure at all. I don't dispute the claim that European nations and the EU have generally done a better job investing in public infrastructure, but I think the gap isn't as bad as some in this thread have made out, especially when you consider the vastly different conditions under which those policies were made. I've lived in a lot of countries, including the US and two European nations, and I've worked in project finance, so I have some direct experience with this. That said, the US desperately needs to invest in bridges and several other categories of infrastructure.
• Bartweiss 9y ago
  > And after that; Silence. It's like you didn't even care to maintain it. I'm not sure the overall comparison here holds, but this is overwhelmingly true. America has made a huge amount of funding available for new infrastructure, while constantly underbudgeting (and underspending) on maintenance. The result is a steadily growing liability that would render most suburbs and many cities insolvent if depreciation were honestly accounted for. [1] The founder of Strong Towns was in fact a civil engineer who started the group in a fit of remorse over doing exactly that. [2] Hired to repair a suburban drainage system, he realized that the maintenance was too expensive for the town to pay, and federal grants were unavailable for small-scale maintenance. So instead he found a massive grant (9x the maintenance cost) to expand and modernize the system. It covered costs, but set up a needlessly large system with vastly more costs to cover down the road. This is basically how all urban and transit infrastructure gets done here. Partly for cultural reasons, but largely for financial ones: you can't get emergency funding for new construction, but if you spend maintenance money on upgrades and expansions, then you can go begging for emergency repair funds on what you've built. [3] [1] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason... [2] http://time.com/3031079/suburbs-will-die-sprawl/ http://time.com/3031079/suburbs-will-die-sprawl/ [3] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/4/this-is-why-infrastructure-is-so-expensive https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/6/4/this-is-why-inf...
• joewee 9y ago
  A lot of American infrastructure was built during the new deal era when the federal government had a lot more desire to implement national projects, I don’t think that is still the case. The states are expected to build and manage their infrastructure, some states, like WA, are better than others. Other countries where you see better infrastructure it’s because the national government has the power to drive the project forward (at least at the time).
• jcranberry 9y ago
  Historically, America has a very pragmatic and cheap culture. I think a lot of the stuff hasn't really been upgraded because it, well, just works. When there's competition and impetus for moving forward, America moves forward very quickly. Otherwise, as long as whatever we have is good enough to reach our goals, we tend to sit on it.
• ataturk 9y ago
  Every municipality in the US over-promised on pensions in order to under-pay workers and kick the can. EVERYTHING you experience that is a problem every day is related to the pensions crisis one way or another because cities are now scrambling to meet those legal obligations.