9 ms·

California’s high-speed rail project was ‘captured’ by costly consultants

143 points by petethomas 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
redwood 8y ago
I experienced this in my first job... A regulatory decision around approval of a new power line in California... where the consulting and regulatory costs of simply discussing whether the line should be built literally ran over $100 million. Paid for by all California power users in their rates. The sad thing is the state of affairs can be used by any party that for any reason wants to fight anything it want (with money): just leverage environmental protection laws even when it's intellectually dishonest to do so, and win by miring the process in hundreds of millions of dollars of total waste. Of course that's just the abuse of law/process side of things. Separately we've seen the loss of expertise in house within governments and the rise of consulting firms required to do everything. There was a time when cities built their own transit! Now you have to hire expensive Consultants from Europe or Asia because the idea that people could figure this out on their own with their civil engineering degrees and experience in adjascent fields is simply verboten. If anyone hasn't read The Power Broker about the rise of Robert Moses, it's a great read: You can disagree with much of his methodology/power hunger/abuse of people, and you can certainly disagree with what he built, but what he did demonstrate is that the people with the plans who can execute while everyone else is talking about grand dreams can GET STUFF DONE. We need more people in government who actually have a plan, that are actually willing to take bets on people, to hire high-quality people, to see hard projects through, not to punt everything off to consulting firms. Let's be honest, consulting firms never feel ownership. Their deliverable is that beautiful PDF. No PDF ever built any grand infrastructure. And the Golden Gate Bridge, and the New York subway, never even had the glorious joy of benefiting from either PDF or PowerPoint. Let's admit it, when it comes to building infrastructure we've completely failed and we need to have a serious wake-up call. Sadly most people have no idea how bad it has gotten because when they spend a hundred million dollars collectively deciding whether to build a power line in the San Diego desert, they barely notice that they're paying an incremental portion of a penny more for every kilowatt-hour of power.
- ZanyProgrammer 8y ago
  I have read the Power Broker, and I don't think it really has anything to do with getting things build in spite of regulations. Sure he got things built, but the modern regulatory state wasn't really an issue in the 1950s. Also part of the reason why foreign consultants are hired is because the US has so little experience building high speed rail, and when the domestic civil engineers do design things, you get over engineered concrete monstrosities, like the Millbrae Bart station.
  - redwood 8y ago
    People tried to use all kinds of methods to stop all kinds of Robert Moses projects, but he was always there faster than them or literally breaking through ignoring them. Now I don't want to romanticize the scumbag, but the lesson to me is that there's a balance. Anything you do that's controversial to some audience will absolutely have opponents. You need to have the backbone and wherewithal to power through.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      Thankfully though, he didn't have the wherewithal to power through everything he wanted to do. I get your point. But the balance is going to vary a lot depending upon your priorities.
    - bobthepanda 8y ago
      Robert Moses is a prime example of how a misguided despot can ruin everything for generations to come. Other polities manage to build infrastructure without needing a dictator; the necessity of one shows how fundamentally broken the process is. And Moses, in his quest to build highways, broke down New York‘s system even more.
  - MrTonyD 8y ago
    And my recollection of the Power Broker is that he got a lot done by aligning with the desires of the rich at the expense of incredible numbers of poor people who had no power to stop him from destroying their lives. I would hope that we can figure out better ways to justify building bridges, freeways, buildings, and parks.
C1sc0cat 8y ago
Sounds like the problems Hertz had with Accenture
chrisseaton 8y ago
Wow I had no idea they were actually already constructing this rail line, and it's actually going to go all the way into central San Francisco, that's great! I thought it was all just a vague idea and people wanted a hyperloop instead.
- redwood 8y ago
  Sadly, Newson actually cut off the ends so now that it's going to be only in the Central Valley. Of course I think it's a political stunt on his part where he probably figures if we build the Central Valley bit it'll be politically nuts not to complete the ends where all the population state lives later. But basically it's a fiasco. And by the way, liberal blue Peninsula residents from Palo Alto etc have been the primary blocker for this entire project from the very beginning using environmental impact statements to try and kill high speed rail line going through their environments, something that would increase the value of their cities. It's really sad. Basically another version of we don't want to see housing built NIMBYism at its worst.
  - ZanyProgrammer 8y ago
    I think the original idea was to build the CV segment first as a fait accompli, not really Newsom's idea. And yeah, as the most technically demanding parts (as well as benefitting the most people immediately) the bookends should've been built first. See the whole debate several years ago with "technicals" vs "politicals" on the web.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Hilariously, the folks who likely voted against the bond measure are the ones that are going to be stuck staring at this monument to big government failure.
  - DennisP 8y ago
    What is your evidence that the environmental impact is actually lower than they claim?
    - 8y ago
rayiner 8y ago
Okay. So the project is $44 billion over budget, and the consulting contracts (not just the overages, but the entire contracts) add up to less than $2 billion. Where does the other $42 billion in overages come from?
- jdhn 8y ago
  I'd assume that it comes from land acquisition, lawsuits, and general underestimation as to how much this would actually cost.
Reason077 8y ago
There are some parallels here to London's troubled Crossrail project. Politicians and civil servants took their eyes of the ball and turned project management almost completely over to the private sector. For years, everything was apparently going fine and the project was on time and on budget. Suddenly, just weeks before it was supposed to open in 2018, it was revealed to be years behind and potentially billions over budget. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/true-scale-of-crossrail-problems-laid-bare/10038753.article https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/true-scale-of-crossr... (And, for an even more crazy civil construction project failure, see Berlin Brandenberg Airport)
- dvdkhlng 8y ago
  For the Berlin Brandenburg Airport story, have a look here: https://onemileatatime.com/berlin-brandenburg-airport/ Everybody expected it to open in 2012, people even got plane tickets for flights departing from there, but then it never opened. With all the cost accumulated since then, it would have been cheaper (and faster) to just tear it down and rebuild from scratch.
  - oftenwrong 8y ago
    https://onemileatatime.com/berlin-brandenburg-airport/ https://onemileatatime.com/berlin-brandenburg-airport/
- bjourne 8y ago
  Same thing with NKS construction in Stockholm: https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6268658 https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&ar... The common denominator is CONSULTANTS and an over reliance on the private sector to get things done. Consultants get paid proportionally to the number of hours they bill. It is obvious that that doesn't optimize for efficiency. But politicians fall for the same trick again and again...
tomohawk 8y ago
Consultants get paid to do what you want them to do. If the government contracts for some consultants and lets them "take over", then it's their fault. They were either unclear in their direction, providing incorrect direction, or incompetent at managing the contract. If they do not have the expertise to act as their own general contractor, they should hire one. Really, since federal funds went into this, the agencies managing this should be investigated by the federal government and the state should have to pay back the funds that they mismanaged.
- commandlinefan 8y ago
  Even the ones who saw this coming probably had no real way to work around it. I read a quote once - I can’t remember who said it and am too lazy to google it - but it was something along the lines of “people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but they’ll never forget how you made them feel”. It’s supposed to be inspirational, but to me, it’s the most depressing fucking thing I’ve ever read in my life because it’s so accurate. They won’t remember that when you said “this timeline is unrealistic” that you were right, all they’ll remember is that you made them feel bad. The brutal accuracy of it, though, has definitely inspired me to stop trying - I do what I’m told and no more, because trying to be helpful or actually be forward thinking is a surefire recipe for disaster. I do make people “feel” good, though, except on here where I’m “salty”.
  - slothario 8y ago
    I'm assuming you mean you try to give people honest feedback, but people object to it because it's too harsh? It's completely possible to honest, assertive and kind at the same time. I see this false dichotomy all the time: "be honest and make enemies" or "be silent and watch a project tank." There's a third option: be frank and kind. (And yes, there are environments where no form of honesty, gentle or harsh, is welcome -- smile, put in your 40 hours and try to find employment elsewhere.) If you're constantly angering people with your honesty, the problem is not with your honesty but with your people skills. You need to cut the pity party and take a hard look at your communication habits.
  - 8y ago
upofadown 8y ago
If you contract out your design work you need to then hire people as smart or smarter then the contractors to oversee that work.
netcan 8y ago
This is sorta tangential... I immediately thought of these sort of flops when I musk/spaceX announce the boring company. These things happen all the time. Where I live (dublin), the overcoat scandal du jour is a big hospital build that is costing 300% over budget, due to this sort of failure. Then follows the finger pointing, moral righteousnous, promises that heads will roll, long, boring speeches (we are very good at these here) about greed and accountability. But... like enterprise software contracts... all the agreements are carefully designed so that liability doesn't stick to you when failure inevitably comes. Anyway... Musk. Being this name-brand business magnate makes avoiding liability much harder. If they were contracted to do a boring priject, they'd naturally have something riding on success. Boring company is just an example, but name brand contractors for city level projects may be useful... A good name to put on the line. Just a thought.
rayiner 8y ago
Calling a lot of these contractors "consultants" is rather misleading. WSP--the biggest contractor--is the "rail delivery partner." They're responsible for overseeing everyone else, dealing with environmental review, dealing with engineering contingencies, etc. $700 million sounds like a lot for a "consultant" but seems pretty reasonable for what is basically the general contractor on a $50-100 billion engineering and construction project.
- 1024core 8y ago
  > on a $50-100 billion engineering and construction project. That rangeright: they "estimated" the project would cost $33B and be done in 12 years .... 12 years ago. And now they want $100B and 30 years. Such companies have an obvious profit motive to cause overruns.
conanbatt 8y ago
Public officials need to start going to jail for wasting money like this.
SN76477 8y ago
Where there is money there are people trying to get a piece. This is why we need regulations.
Proven 8y ago
Which gov project was not captured? They all have been and will be captured by either crooks or fanatics - that's the whole point of having a system of coercive no-opt-out government.
Reedx 8y ago
It's amazing how terrible we've become at public works. The Golden Gate Bridge was built in 4 years. Ahead of schedule and under budget! The Bay Bridge took 5 years, also ahead of schedule and under budget. This was the 1930s. Imagine what people thought would be possible in the futuristic 2000s. Surely we've gotten a lot better at building things in nearly a century? Better technology, machines, engineering, materials... Well, recently we rebuilt a small portion (just 2.2 of 8.2 miles) of the Bay Bridge. It took 11 years to build. Years behind schedule and 2,500% over budget. Seriously, why isn't this considered unacceptable? It's such a shame compared to what we could be accomplishing.
- gok 8y ago
  11 construction workers died building the Golden Gate Bridge, and 28 died building the Bay Bridge. There is something to be said for modern construction standards just being much safer, although also slower. Environmental impact studies and staggeringly high labor costs also make things more expensive, of course.
- JPKab 8y ago
  Monopolistic bureaucracies incentivize risk avoidance over accomplishment of goals, especially government bureaucracies. That's the core issue with big projects. Private entrerprises accomplish them all the time, as long as its THEIR MONEY and their gain. Governments in the US have, over time, allowed for more and more red tape that primarily exists to minimize risks and liability to the government employees overseeing contractors on large projects. This red tape creates a maze of rules and regulations that ensure that only contractors whose primary expertise is navigating the maze get the work. The secondary expertise of actually accomplishing the task is secondary to both the enterprise and the government managers. This is an observation that I make as someone that once upon a time had to deal with the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) when building software for the US Federal Government. Reducing risk is like everything else: Eventually, you hit a point of diminishing returns, and the government red tape, especially for large entities like the California DOT, only grows more complex over time. You never see anyone trying to simplify it.
- mapt 8y ago
  Largely because we decided not to build public works. When we do get one, the pressure is so high to succeed and to cut costs that people reliably focus on outsourcing responsibility and notional cost-savings, and then when that falls through on recrimination and fixes. We pressure private profit-seeking companies to make "bids" without putting up any kind of collateral, on the chance that if we did it we might waste money employing some extra labor or employ a union. Something like 50% of the politicians in this country simply doesn't believe we should do anything as a public work. They do not believe in public works. They will actively sabotage public works in the hope that they will go overbudget and prove their philosophy correct. Compromising with these people instead of cleansing their ideology with holy fire nets "public-private partnerships" and "bid processes" and "inquests" and "deadlines" and "being cancelled in disgrace" and thus further anxiety about the next project, but an inability to compensate with higher bids. Things would be a lot easier if we just wanted to build things, and paid people to build things, even if this meant getting into the business of building things. Instead, we want to be dramatic in our compromises, pretend that waterfall infrastructure planning is viable and can achieve perfect efficiency and predictability, treat limited liability corporations as moral actors which can be held culpable for giving us the lies we asked for, and regularly re-avow our faith in the market.
daemonk 8y ago
Sounds like no one person or group wanted to take responsibility for the project. If the project fails, they wanted the blame to be distributed among as many people as possible.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  Sounds like..government.
randyrand 8y ago
And some people want government to run healthcare? the mind boggles.

143 points by petethomas 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

I experienced this in my first job... A regulatory decision around approval of a new power line in California... where the consulting and regulatory costs of simply discussing whether the line should be built literally ran over $100 million. Paid for by all California power users in their rates. The sad thing is the state of affairs can be used by any party that for any reason wants to fight anything it want (with money): just leverage environmental protection laws even when it's intellectually dishonest to do so, and win by miring the process in hundreds of millions of dollars of total waste. Of course that's just the abuse of law/process side of things. Separately we've seen the loss of expertise in house within governments and the rise of consulting firms required to do everything. There was a time when cities built their own transit! Now you have to hire expensive Consultants from Europe or Asia because the idea that people could figure this out on their own with their civil engineering degrees and experience in adjascent fields is simply verboten. If anyone hasn't read The Power Broker about the rise of Robert Moses, it's a great read: You can disagree with much of his methodology/power hunger/abuse of people, and you can certainly disagree with what he built, but what he did demonstrate is that the people with the plans who can execute while everyone else is talking about grand dreams can GET STUFF DONE. We need more people in government who actually have a plan, that are actually willing to take bets on people, to hire high-quality people, to see hard projects through, not to punt everything off to consulting firms. Let's be honest, consulting firms never feel ownership. Their deliverable is that beautiful PDF. No PDF ever built any grand infrastructure. And the Golden Gate Bridge, and the New York subway, never even had the glorious joy of benefiting from either PDF or PowerPoint. Let's admit it, when it comes to building infrastructure we've completely failed and we need to have a serious wake-up call. Sadly most people have no idea how bad it has gotten because when they spend a hundred million dollars collectively deciding whether to build a power line in the San Diego desert, they barely notice that they're paying an incremental portion of a penny more for every kilowatt-hour of power.

ZanyProgrammer 8y ago
I have read the Power Broker, and I don't think it really has anything to do with getting things build in spite of regulations. Sure he got things built, but the modern regulatory state wasn't really an issue in the 1950s. Also part of the reason why foreign consultants are hired is because the US has so little experience building high speed rail, and when the domestic civil engineers do design things, you get over engineered concrete monstrosities, like the Millbrae Bart station.
- redwood 8y ago
  People tried to use all kinds of methods to stop all kinds of Robert Moses projects, but he was always there faster than them or literally breaking through ignoring them. Now I don't want to romanticize the scumbag, but the lesson to me is that there's a balance. Anything you do that's controversial to some audience will absolutely have opponents. You need to have the backbone and wherewithal to power through.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    Thankfully though, he didn't have the wherewithal to power through everything he wanted to do. I get your point. But the balance is going to vary a lot depending upon your priorities.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    Robert Moses is a prime example of how a misguided despot can ruin everything for generations to come. Other polities manage to build infrastructure without needing a dictator; the necessity of one shows how fundamentally broken the process is. And Moses, in his quest to build highways, broke down New York‘s system even more.
- MrTonyD 8y ago
  And my recollection of the Power Broker is that he got a lot done by aligning with the desires of the rich at the expense of incredible numbers of poor people who had no power to stop him from destroying their lives. I would hope that we can figure out better ways to justify building bridges, freeways, buildings, and parks.

C1sc0cat 8y ago

Sounds like the problems Hertz had with Accenture

chrisseaton 8y ago

Wow I had no idea they were actually already constructing this rail line, and it's actually going to go all the way into central San Francisco, that's great! I thought it was all just a vague idea and people wanted a hyperloop instead.

redwood 8y ago
Sadly, Newson actually cut off the ends so now that it's going to be only in the Central Valley. Of course I think it's a political stunt on his part where he probably figures if we build the Central Valley bit it'll be politically nuts not to complete the ends where all the population state lives later. But basically it's a fiasco. And by the way, liberal blue Peninsula residents from Palo Alto etc have been the primary blocker for this entire project from the very beginning using environmental impact statements to try and kill high speed rail line going through their environments, something that would increase the value of their cities. It's really sad. Basically another version of we don't want to see housing built NIMBYism at its worst.
- ZanyProgrammer 8y ago
  I think the original idea was to build the CV segment first as a fait accompli, not really Newsom's idea. And yeah, as the most technically demanding parts (as well as benefitting the most people immediately) the bookends should've been built first. See the whole debate several years ago with "technicals" vs "politicals" on the web.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Hilariously, the folks who likely voted against the bond measure are the ones that are going to be stuck staring at this monument to big government failure.
- DennisP 8y ago
  What is your evidence that the environmental impact is actually lower than they claim?
  - 8y ago

rayiner 8y ago

Okay. So the project is $44 billion over budget, and the consulting contracts (not just the overages, but the entire contracts) add up to less than $2 billion. Where does the other $42 billion in overages come from?

jdhn 8y ago
I'd assume that it comes from land acquisition, lawsuits, and general underestimation as to how much this would actually cost.

Reason077 8y ago

There are some parallels here to London's troubled Crossrail project. Politicians and civil servants took their eyes of the ball and turned project management almost completely over to the private sector. For years, everything was apparently going fine and the project was on time and on budget. Suddenly, just weeks before it was supposed to open in 2018, it was revealed to be years behind and potentially billions over budget. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/true-scale-of-crossrail-problems-laid-bare/10038753.article https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/true-scale-of-crossr... (And, for an even more crazy civil construction project failure, see Berlin Brandenberg Airport)

dvdkhlng 8y ago
For the Berlin Brandenburg Airport story, have a look here: https://onemileatatime.com/berlin-brandenburg-airport/ Everybody expected it to open in 2012, people even got plane tickets for flights departing from there, but then it never opened. With all the cost accumulated since then, it would have been cheaper (and faster) to just tear it down and rebuild from scratch.
- oftenwrong 8y ago
  https://onemileatatime.com/berlin-brandenburg-airport/ https://onemileatatime.com/berlin-brandenburg-airport/
bjourne 8y ago
Same thing with NKS construction in Stockholm: https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6268658 https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&ar... The common denominator is CONSULTANTS and an over reliance on the private sector to get things done. Consultants get paid proportionally to the number of hours they bill. It is obvious that that doesn't optimize for efficiency. But politicians fall for the same trick again and again...

tomohawk 8y ago

Consultants get paid to do what you want them to do. If the government contracts for some consultants and lets them "take over", then it's their fault. They were either unclear in their direction, providing incorrect direction, or incompetent at managing the contract. If they do not have the expertise to act as their own general contractor, they should hire one. Really, since federal funds went into this, the agencies managing this should be investigated by the federal government and the state should have to pay back the funds that they mismanaged.

commandlinefan 8y ago
Even the ones who saw this coming probably had no real way to work around it. I read a quote once - I can’t remember who said it and am too lazy to google it - but it was something along the lines of “people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but they’ll never forget how you made them feel”. It’s supposed to be inspirational, but to me, it’s the most depressing fucking thing I’ve ever read in my life because it’s so accurate. They won’t remember that when you said “this timeline is unrealistic” that you were right, all they’ll remember is that you made them feel bad. The brutal accuracy of it, though, has definitely inspired me to stop trying - I do what I’m told and no more, because trying to be helpful or actually be forward thinking is a surefire recipe for disaster. I do make people “feel” good, though, except on here where I’m “salty”.
- slothario 8y ago
  I'm assuming you mean you try to give people honest feedback, but people object to it because it's too harsh? It's completely possible to honest, assertive and kind at the same time. I see this false dichotomy all the time: "be honest and make enemies" or "be silent and watch a project tank." There's a third option: be frank and kind. (And yes, there are environments where no form of honesty, gentle or harsh, is welcome -- smile, put in your 40 hours and try to find employment elsewhere.) If you're constantly angering people with your honesty, the problem is not with your honesty but with your people skills. You need to cut the pity party and take a hard look at your communication habits.
- 8y ago

upofadown 8y ago

If you contract out your design work you need to then hire people as smart or smarter then the contractors to oversee that work.

netcan 8y ago

This is sorta tangential... I immediately thought of these sort of flops when I musk/spaceX announce the boring company. These things happen all the time. Where I live (dublin), the overcoat scandal du jour is a big hospital build that is costing 300% over budget, due to this sort of failure. Then follows the finger pointing, moral righteousnous, promises that heads will roll, long, boring speeches (we are very good at these here) about greed and accountability. But... like enterprise software contracts... all the agreements are carefully designed so that liability doesn't stick to you when failure inevitably comes. Anyway... Musk. Being this name-brand business magnate makes avoiding liability much harder. If they were contracted to do a boring priject, they'd naturally have something riding on success. Boring company is just an example, but name brand contractors for city level projects may be useful... A good name to put on the line. Just a thought.

rayiner 8y ago

Calling a lot of these contractors "consultants" is rather misleading. WSP--the biggest contractor--is the "rail delivery partner." They're responsible for overseeing everyone else, dealing with environmental review, dealing with engineering contingencies, etc. $700 million sounds like a lot for a "consultant" but seems pretty reasonable for what is basically the general contractor on a $50-100 billion engineering and construction project.

1024core 8y ago
> on a $50-100 billion engineering and construction project. That rangeright: they "estimated" the project would cost $33B and be done in 12 years .... 12 years ago. And now they want $100B and 30 years. Such companies have an obvious profit motive to cause overruns.

conanbatt 8y ago

Public officials need to start going to jail for wasting money like this.

SN76477 8y ago

Where there is money there are people trying to get a piece. This is why we need regulations.

Proven 8y ago

Which gov project was not captured? They all have been and will be captured by either crooks or fanatics - that's the whole point of having a system of coercive no-opt-out government.

Reedx 8y ago

It's amazing how terrible we've become at public works. The Golden Gate Bridge was built in 4 years. Ahead of schedule and under budget! The Bay Bridge took 5 years, also ahead of schedule and under budget. This was the 1930s. Imagine what people thought would be possible in the futuristic 2000s. Surely we've gotten a lot better at building things in nearly a century? Better technology, machines, engineering, materials... Well, recently we rebuilt a small portion (just 2.2 of 8.2 miles) of the Bay Bridge. It took 11 years to build. Years behind schedule and 2,500% over budget. Seriously, why isn't this considered unacceptable? It's such a shame compared to what we could be accomplishing.

gok 8y ago
11 construction workers died building the Golden Gate Bridge, and 28 died building the Bay Bridge. There is something to be said for modern construction standards just being much safer, although also slower. Environmental impact studies and staggeringly high labor costs also make things more expensive, of course.
JPKab 8y ago
Monopolistic bureaucracies incentivize risk avoidance over accomplishment of goals, especially government bureaucracies. That's the core issue with big projects. Private entrerprises accomplish them all the time, as long as its THEIR MONEY and their gain. Governments in the US have, over time, allowed for more and more red tape that primarily exists to minimize risks and liability to the government employees overseeing contractors on large projects. This red tape creates a maze of rules and regulations that ensure that only contractors whose primary expertise is navigating the maze get the work. The secondary expertise of actually accomplishing the task is secondary to both the enterprise and the government managers. This is an observation that I make as someone that once upon a time had to deal with the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) when building software for the US Federal Government. Reducing risk is like everything else: Eventually, you hit a point of diminishing returns, and the government red tape, especially for large entities like the California DOT, only grows more complex over time. You never see anyone trying to simplify it.
mapt 8y ago
Largely because we decided not to build public works. When we do get one, the pressure is so high to succeed and to cut costs that people reliably focus on outsourcing responsibility and notional cost-savings, and then when that falls through on recrimination and fixes. We pressure private profit-seeking companies to make "bids" without putting up any kind of collateral, on the chance that if we did it we might waste money employing some extra labor or employ a union. Something like 50% of the politicians in this country simply doesn't believe we should do anything as a public work. They do not believe in public works. They will actively sabotage public works in the hope that they will go overbudget and prove their philosophy correct. Compromising with these people instead of cleansing their ideology with holy fire nets "public-private partnerships" and "bid processes" and "inquests" and "deadlines" and "being cancelled in disgrace" and thus further anxiety about the next project, but an inability to compensate with higher bids. Things would be a lot easier if we just wanted to build things, and paid people to build things, even if this meant getting into the business of building things. Instead, we want to be dramatic in our compromises, pretend that waterfall infrastructure planning is viable and can achieve perfect efficiency and predictability, treat limited liability corporations as moral actors which can be held culpable for giving us the lies we asked for, and regularly re-avow our faith in the market.

daemonk 8y ago

Sounds like no one person or group wanted to take responsibility for the project. If the project fails, they wanted the blame to be distributed among as many people as possible.

conanbatt 8y ago
Sounds like..government.

randyrand 8y ago

And some people want government to run healthcare? the mind boggles.