4 ms·
"...cost $793 per meter in 2019 dollars.". IMO, extrapolations like this are not very useful unless it also means it can actually be executed at that cost in 2
by vinay_ys 7y ago
"...cost $793 per meter in 2019 dollars.".
IMO, extrapolations like this are not very useful unless it also means it can actually be executed at that cost in 2019.
Is that really the case here?
- OnlineGladiator 7y agoIt's not meant to be an extrapolation; it's meant to be a comparison. The point is they did it more cheaply than is conceivable today.
- paggle 7y agoNo, it's specifically meant to illustrate that the inflation in infrastructure costs has been wildly faster than the inflation in the rest of the economy. The US can't build infrastructure for any kind of reasonable cost anymore and it is a big fucking problem.
- jacobush 7y agoIt IS a big problem, but shifting stuff around in a dense city is different from piling some dirt into a shape on the tundra.
- clarry 7y agoAnd yet the infrastructure cost of rural areas is regularly cited as a problem, and moving people into big dense cities is proposed as the solution.
- Turing_Machine 7y agoMost of the route is through extremely rugged mountainous terrain, not tundra, and developing a roadbed that can survive -70 F winters is a lot more involved than "piling dirt into a shape" I traveled it before was paved, and it was, and is, a true engineering marvel.
- jacobush 7y agoYes, I both unravelled my vast illiteracy on road engineering in general and understated a bit on purpose. My point was that there is not much existing infrastructure to take into account up there. Your point taken though.
- read_if_gay_ 7y agoI think you could argue that infrastructure quality has grown at a pace that justifies the increased expense.
- coldtea 7y agoThe opposite. Modern infrastructure is shit compared to decades ago...
- OnlineGladiator 7y agoDo you have examples? I feel like things have gotten 10x more expensive and they're built with half the quality. In San Francisco we have a leaning skyscraper, the Bay Bridge which some people are still unsure is safe despite being several years late and costing 5x as much as predicted, and the Transit Center which was however many months/years late and is continuously shut down for safety reasons. I realize San Francisco is a microcosm, but in my experience the focus has been on extracting money via corruption and building the bare minimum you can without getting sued. You could argue the money is going towards greater safety for workers, but I see no plausible argument that it's resulting in higher quality work.
- inimino 7y agoThe point is that it cannot be.
- Marazan 7y agoAccording to the article it cost $4600 a day to build. On a 8 hour work day on federal minimum wage that's only 52 workers being able to work on the entire project ignoring all machine and material costs. Too right it couldn't be done today. Or there were a lot of costs accumulated by the project that were not assigned to the project.
- madsbuch 7y agoI hope usd 4600 does not include labor costs of 10000 soldiers (salary, food, accommodation, etc.)
- edraferi 7y agoClassic government accounting problem. People look free to managers, so more stuff gets brought in-house than it should.
- Marazan 7y agoOh balls, just realised I misread the comment about cost per meter as cost per mile so my calc is hilariously wrong! Still the reported cost of the road at the tune excludes machinery and labour costs, it was purely material costs.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]