12 ms·

This is a really depressing story to read. I've always believed that a good indicator of a country's health, is its ability to tackle complex large-scale projec

by whack 8y ago

This is a really depressing story to read. I've always believed that a good indicator of a country's health, is its ability to tackle complex large-scale projects. Projects that require coordination on multiple fronts: politics, bureaucracy, technical-know-how, civic sacrifice. In the old days when all this infrastructure was built in the first place, we showed our ability to do so. But now, we've gotten to the point where even maintaining it is proving too challenging. When you look at other countries like Singapore, China, Korea and Japan, it's clear that our political and governmental institutions are lagging far behind when it comes to "getting things done". I wonder what this portends for the coming century.

Retric 8y ago
These problems are really common with 50+ year old infrastructure. Looks at the NYC subway from 50 or even 70 years ago and it looks about the same as it does now: Now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Subway_map#/media/File:Official_New_York_City_Subway_Map_vc.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Subway_map#/medi... 1968: https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/irvingtrust-july68.png https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/irvingtr... 1948: https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/system_1948.gif https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/system_1... The problem is basic day to day maintenance is really not enough, infrastructure get's increasingly complex and expensive over time. Now compare this with you example city's 70 years ago and it's a rather different situation. Singapore for example did not even start construction on a subway system until 1982.
- nicoburns 8y ago
  Indeed, the problem is that money hasn't been invested in modernisation.
- adrianN 8y ago
  The subway systems in London and Paris are pretty old but work reasonably well. You have to properly maintain and modernize the system then the age of the original structures doesn't matter as much.
  - baud147258 8y ago
    As an example for Paris, the oldest subway line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_M%C3%A9tro_Line_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_M%C3%A9tro_Line_1) is fully automated. There are some of the cars on other lines (like line 10 I'm taking to go to work) are more than 40 years old (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_67 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_67), but they've been through some refurbishment since then.
temp-dude-87844 8y ago
I don't disagree with this sentiment, but it's worth pointing out that nearly all transportation projects from the "old days" around the world were done by private companies, and often met a swift end in bankruptcy. Creditors lost a lot, but the assets were then picked up by others, and refined through years of trial and error into endeavors of modest profitability. Only our sepia-colored glasses and the survival bias of remaining parts makes it look like people back then had it figured out, and we don't. Private rail systems in Europe eventually were nationalized during the warring decades of the 1900s and remained that way longer than in the US, while in the US the government spun up Amtrak to relieve rail operators from passenger rail and its rapidly declining revenues, while letting freight railroads go through waves of mergers until only a handful remained. Soon after Amtrak, the airline industry was deregulated, and airlines proceeded to copy the idea: rack up costs, declare bankruptcy, sell, reset. Truth is, big, ambitious construction projects, and big, ambitious service networks have always sucked, and the ones that remain went through many cycles of overruns and disappointment and service reduction before they stuck. Maybe what ought to worry us isn't that we've lost the magic touch of delivering ambitious, long-running deliverables (railroads, infrastructure, cities, government services...) sustainably, but that we never mastered it in the first place, and the things we have now are the much-recycled husks of former grand ideas that managed to eke by.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- adrianratnapala 8y ago
  > it's worth pointing out that nearly all transportation projects from the "old days" around the world were done by private companies, and often met a swift end in bankruptcy... Only our sepia-colored glasses and the survival bias of remaining parts makes it look like people back then had it figured out, and we don't. This is true, but only part of the story. The private railroads (and indeed much internet infrastructure) had two phases. In the first, early entrants made big profits by picking the low hanging fruit (i.e. most profitable opportunities) in a new market. This created investor euphoria just as the opportunities for "easy" profits were drying up. So things turned towards speculative, even fraudulent investments that left the investors out of pocket. But, as you point out, even the second phase left some infrastructure on the ground that could be operated at a profit once bought at firesale prices.
burfog 8y ago
New York subways were sort of stolen. They were privately built, then the companies were forced into bankruptcy by price caps. The companies were not allowed to raise fares, inflation happened, and thus the government took control. You own it, you maintain it. Good luck.

by whack 8y ago

Retric 8y ago

These problems are really common with 50+ year old infrastructure. Looks at the NYC subway from 50 or even 70 years ago and it looks about the same as it does now: Now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Subway_map#/media/File:Official_New_York_City_Subway_Map_vc.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Subway_map#/medi... 1968: https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/irvingtrust-july68.png https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/irvingtr... 1948: https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/system_1948.gif https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/system_1... The problem is basic day to day maintenance is really not enough, infrastructure get's increasingly complex and expensive over time. Now compare this with you example city's 70 years ago and it's a rather different situation. Singapore for example did not even start construction on a subway system until 1982.

nicoburns 8y ago
Indeed, the problem is that money hasn't been invested in modernisation.
adrianN 8y ago
The subway systems in London and Paris are pretty old but work reasonably well. You have to properly maintain and modernize the system then the age of the original structures doesn't matter as much.
- baud147258 8y ago
  As an example for Paris, the oldest subway line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_M%C3%A9tro_Line_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_M%C3%A9tro_Line_1) is fully automated. There are some of the cars on other lines (like line 10 I'm taking to go to work) are more than 40 years old (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_67 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_67), but they've been through some refurbishment since then.

temp-dude-87844 8y ago

I don't disagree with this sentiment, but it's worth pointing out that nearly all transportation projects from the "old days" around the world were done by private companies, and often met a swift end in bankruptcy. Creditors lost a lot, but the assets were then picked up by others, and refined through years of trial and error into endeavors of modest profitability. Only our sepia-colored glasses and the survival bias of remaining parts makes it look like people back then had it figured out, and we don't. Private rail systems in Europe eventually were nationalized during the warring decades of the 1900s and remained that way longer than in the US, while in the US the government spun up Amtrak to relieve rail operators from passenger rail and its rapidly declining revenues, while letting freight railroads go through waves of mergers until only a handful remained. Soon after Amtrak, the airline industry was deregulated, and airlines proceeded to copy the idea: rack up costs, declare bankruptcy, sell, reset. Truth is, big, ambitious construction projects, and big, ambitious service networks have always sucked, and the ones that remain went through many cycles of overruns and disappointment and service reduction before they stuck. Maybe what ought to worry us isn't that we've lost the magic touch of delivering ambitious, long-running deliverables (railroads, infrastructure, cities, government services...) sustainably, but that we never mastered it in the first place, and the things we have now are the much-recycled husks of former grand ideas that managed to eke by.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
adrianratnapala 8y ago
> it's worth pointing out that nearly all transportation projects from the "old days" around the world were done by private companies, and often met a swift end in bankruptcy... Only our sepia-colored glasses and the survival bias of remaining parts makes it look like people back then had it figured out, and we don't. This is true, but only part of the story. The private railroads (and indeed much internet infrastructure) had two phases. In the first, early entrants made big profits by picking the low hanging fruit (i.e. most profitable opportunities) in a new market. This created investor euphoria just as the opportunities for "easy" profits were drying up. So things turned towards speculative, even fraudulent investments that left the investors out of pocket. But, as you point out, even the second phase left some infrastructure on the ground that could be operated at a profit once bought at firesale prices.

burfog 8y ago

New York subways were sort of stolen. They were privately built, then the companies were forced into bankruptcy by price caps. The companies were not allowed to raise fares, inflation happened, and thus the government took control. You own it, you maintain it. Good luck.