4 ms·

I don't think the technical issues are the cause of the uncertainty in large scale projects, it is the political, right of way, and permitting issues that make

by edogg 6y ago

I don't think the technical issues are the cause of the uncertainty in large scale projects, it is the political, right of way, and permitting issues that make it impossible to plan and execute a project. Out in the middle of the water there must not have been many people to oppose the project! And everyone in Venice was happy not to be flooded out. I've designed and programmed control systems for about a dozen similar inflatable dams although the largest one I worked on was miniscule in comparison at 3m tall and 25m wide. My projects used a product with kevlar bladders with stainless panels on top rather than pumping air in to enormous metal enclosures. There must be one hell of a compressor station to provide the volume of air required to get the water out of the gate panels in venice. And since the use of the flood protection will probably coincide with shit weather I bet they have diesel standby generators to power the whole operation.

addicted 6y ago
The original statement never suggested the odds were poor because of technical reasons. The project has been ongoing in some form from the 60s and 70s.
aeturnum 6y ago
I think we could talk about how much to trust internally generated assessments of how successful an ambitious engineering project will be. Projects have been badly designed by well meaning engineers before. That said, I wasn't trying to say that the problem was technical in nature. It's that a sound technical design (and competent construction of that design) is only one part in a much larger problem set. A solution that the people who are paying for it don't want (for whatever reason) is unlikely to succeed. The Wikipedia article for MOSE (the Venice anti-flood system) lists many lawsuits worried that it's insufficient, will damage the environment, etc[1]. To me, this suggests that it may harm projects to leave it at "the engineering is fine." The engineering may actually be more flexible than other constraints. It's possible that the optimal design for a perfectly supportive environment may be less well suited for the world that exists. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSE_Project#Criticism,_corruption,_and_court_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSE_Project#Criticism,_corrup...
riffraff 6y ago
There was a ton of people opposing this project for decades on environmental grounds ("it will disrupt sea life"), funding grounds ("it will cost too much forever"), corruption grounds ("organized crime will eat all the money") and engineering ("this won't work reliably, will break soon, will be obsolete.."). It was a heavily politicised issue and it's actually mildly surprising to see it finished and working.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Flooding is somewhat of an existential crisis for Venice. If they don't get it figured out the money will stop flowing and they'll be underwater economically as well as literally. Contrast with NYC and SF where people just keep pouring in the dollars no matter how late the trains are or how rampant the petty crime is. Those cities won't pull their collective heads out of their collective asses and figure out solutions until the problem reaches existential proportions. There seems to be only two ways big infrastructure projects get done in the western world these days. The first is a boondoggle graft laden handout to buy votes (e.g. the Big Dig) and the second is to ignore the problem until you can't anymore and then you finally get serious and implement some solution that has been on your radar since forever (e.g. MOSE).

by edogg 6y ago

addicted 6y ago

The original statement never suggested the odds were poor because of technical reasons. The project has been ongoing in some form from the 60s and 70s.

aeturnum 6y ago

I think we could talk about how much to trust internally generated assessments of how successful an ambitious engineering project will be. Projects have been badly designed by well meaning engineers before. That said, I wasn't trying to say that the problem was technical in nature. It's that a sound technical design (and competent construction of that design) is only one part in a much larger problem set. A solution that the people who are paying for it don't want (for whatever reason) is unlikely to succeed. The Wikipedia article for MOSE (the Venice anti-flood system) lists many lawsuits worried that it's insufficient, will damage the environment, etc[1]. To me, this suggests that it may harm projects to leave it at "the engineering is fine." The engineering may actually be more flexible than other constraints. It's possible that the optimal design for a perfectly supportive environment may be less well suited for the world that exists. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSE_Project#Criticism,_corruption,_and_court_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSE_Project#Criticism,_corrup...

riffraff 6y ago

There was a ton of people opposing this project for decades on environmental grounds ("it will disrupt sea life"), funding grounds ("it will cost too much forever"), corruption grounds ("organized crime will eat all the money") and engineering ("this won't work reliably, will break soon, will be obsolete.."). It was a heavily politicised issue and it's actually mildly surprising to see it finished and working.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Flooding is somewhat of an existential crisis for Venice. If they don't get it figured out the money will stop flowing and they'll be underwater economically as well as literally. Contrast with NYC and SF where people just keep pouring in the dollars no matter how late the trains are or how rampant the petty crime is. Those cities won't pull their collective heads out of their collective asses and figure out solutions until the problem reaches existential proportions. There seems to be only two ways big infrastructure projects get done in the western world these days. The first is a boondoggle graft laden handout to buy votes (e.g. the Big Dig) and the second is to ignore the problem until you can't anymore and then you finally get serious and implement some solution that has been on your radar since forever (e.g. MOSE).