3 ms·

Not disagreeing with you about the economic point, but will kindly disagree with you in terms of spending. Let's just say New York does not have a great histor

Not disagreeing with you about the economic point, but will kindly disagree with you in terms of spending. Let's just say New York does not have a great history of spending on infrastructure. A recent New York Times piece, mentioned that the price of labor on infrastructure projects is 5 times more expensive then anywhere else in the world. It just blows my mind that people in the NYC area are willing to put up with that type of congestion. Doesn't Sidewalk Labs( alphabet company) have an office in Manhattan? Where are they in terms of solving traffic problems?

nwah1 9y ago
I agree the costs are high. That is largely a result of the high cost of living. There's additional economically literate funding methods which account for that. For instance, when infrastructure is built, it causes surrounding land values and rents to rise. It is possible to use that rising value to pay for the infrastructure, via a special assessment. There is also an issue where the people with the worst infrastructure would be paying the most under congestion pricing, which means that it would be important to prioritize improvements to the most congested areas.
- morley 9y ago
  I'm not sure you read the article in question. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-... The costs aren't high because of cost of living, they're high because of cushy agreements with workers unions and construction companies, among a myriad other things.
  - nwah1 9y ago
    Interesting, thank you.
- tbihl 9y ago
  To further support your point, not only is it possible to use that added value to pay for infrastructure, but that's historically how it was done back when infrastructure projects had to be profitable (because they were private.) Today, the most similar thing might be the ski resort that is largely profitable because of the sale of slope-side condos.
Retric 9y ago
The NYC subway system is a great example of spending on infrastructure over it's history. NYC may not be efficient in terms of spending, but the results tend to be extremely valuable. Further, it's vastly more expensive to build a road inside a city than in the middle of nowhere. NYC's infrastructure is so extensive it's makes adding more incredibly difficult. That is then compounded by bureaucracy, corruption, and entrenched interests but not more so than most other large city's.

nwah1 9y ago

I agree the costs are high. That is largely a result of the high cost of living. There's additional economically literate funding methods which account for that. For instance, when infrastructure is built, it causes surrounding land values and rents to rise. It is possible to use that rising value to pay for the infrastructure, via a special assessment. There is also an issue where the people with the worst infrastructure would be paying the most under congestion pricing, which means that it would be important to prioritize improvements to the most congested areas.

morley 9y ago
I'm not sure you read the article in question. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-... The costs aren't high because of cost of living, they're high because of cushy agreements with workers unions and construction companies, among a myriad other things.
- nwah1 9y ago
  Interesting, thank you.
tbihl 9y ago
To further support your point, not only is it possible to use that added value to pay for infrastructure, but that's historically how it was done back when infrastructure projects had to be profitable (because they were private.) Today, the most similar thing might be the ski resort that is largely profitable because of the sale of slope-side condos.

Retric 9y ago

The NYC subway system is a great example of spending on infrastructure over it's history. NYC may not be efficient in terms of spending, but the results tend to be extremely valuable. Further, it's vastly more expensive to build a road inside a city than in the middle of nowhere. NYC's infrastructure is so extensive it's makes adding more incredibly difficult. That is then compounded by bureaucracy, corruption, and entrenched interests but not more so than most other large city's.