3 ms·

US big infrastructure projects tend to be 2x or more expensive even compared to other developed nations, including ones much older than us. There's definitely

US big infrastructure projects tend to be 2x or more expensive even compared to other developed nations, including ones much older than us. There's definitely a cost disease at play, and that makes it vastly harder to build and maintain the infrastructure we need. Unfortunately, neither major party seems to care in the least: the Republicans just want to cut government spending in general rather than make it more efficient, and the Democrats are happy to intentionally balloon the cost of new buildings and infrastructure to satisfy allies in the labor movement*. Hardly anyone talks seriously about efficiency. * It's common to have requirements to pay the 'prevailing union wage', which means no price pressure from the government, no negotiation to get a better deal is possible. Nothing against unions, but intentionally going, "we're going to ban ourselves from negotiating a good price when we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars" is ludicrous.

selectodude 5y ago
In 2012, Amtrak estimated that it would cost $150 billion to upgrade the Northeast Corridor for legitimate high speed rail. Almost $330 million per mile for a right of way that they already own. I'm sure that would be $250 billion today because why the hell not? At prices like that, of course we'll never see a mile of new track ever laid again. We've decided that the whole thing is a grift, thrown our hands up and given up. Somehow the French can dig under central Paris for the same price that we can lay some rail on a plot of land that we already own.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  > Almost $330 million per mile for a right of way that they already own. Actually, no. That proposal included entirely new tunnels and city-center stations in Baltimore and Philadelphia, and an entirely new ROW that went from NYC out Long Island, a Long Island Sound crossing to New Haven, new ROW up to Springfield, and then east into Boston, rather than reusing any of the BOS-NYC right-of-way. All of which are expensive and relatively low value (although the CT corridor does need entirely new ROW suitable for HSR, the cost of building such a ROW largely parallel to the existing one--including the taking of expensive property in CT--is likely cheaper than building the Long Island Sound crossing by itself). In a way, I think this is an example of where a large part of American cost disease comes from--projects are designed on the basis of large, flashy megaprojects rather than looking for how to make multiple small, incremental improvements that can be done on the cheap. For example, you could probably squeeze a half an hour or so out of BOS-NYC train time simply by fixing dispatching issues on the New Rochelle-New Haven stretch, which would require very little construction (turning Rye into a flying junction would be the biggest piece I could imagine)--$10s of millions at worst.
BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
I also can’t help but think we Americans “democratize” construction too much. Whenever a project is announced dozens of people come out of the woodwork to protest any and all aspects of the plan. Things get delayed because the local busybodies bring up as much as they can to either halt the construction entirely or to demand concessions. Some of the regulations make sense for most new projects, but does an existing rail line they’re trying to allow passenger trains on need a new environmental impact study because the locals demanded a new 15 foot high sound wall? It’s already inside of a major city and it’s not like there are any endangered species it’s going to impact.

selectodude 5y ago

In 2012, Amtrak estimated that it would cost $150 billion to upgrade the Northeast Corridor for legitimate high speed rail. Almost $330 million per mile for a right of way that they already own. I'm sure that would be $250 billion today because why the hell not? At prices like that, of course we'll never see a mile of new track ever laid again. We've decided that the whole thing is a grift, thrown our hands up and given up. Somehow the French can dig under central Paris for the same price that we can lay some rail on a plot of land that we already own.

jcranmer 5y ago
> Almost $330 million per mile for a right of way that they already own. Actually, no. That proposal included entirely new tunnels and city-center stations in Baltimore and Philadelphia, and an entirely new ROW that went from NYC out Long Island, a Long Island Sound crossing to New Haven, new ROW up to Springfield, and then east into Boston, rather than reusing any of the BOS-NYC right-of-way. All of which are expensive and relatively low value (although the CT corridor does need entirely new ROW suitable for HSR, the cost of building such a ROW largely parallel to the existing one--including the taking of expensive property in CT--is likely cheaper than building the Long Island Sound crossing by itself). In a way, I think this is an example of where a large part of American cost disease comes from--projects are designed on the basis of large, flashy megaprojects rather than looking for how to make multiple small, incremental improvements that can be done on the cheap. For example, you could probably squeeze a half an hour or so out of BOS-NYC train time simply by fixing dispatching issues on the New Rochelle-New Haven stretch, which would require very little construction (turning Rye into a flying junction would be the biggest piece I could imagine)--$10s of millions at worst.

BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago

I also can’t help but think we Americans “democratize” construction too much. Whenever a project is announced dozens of people come out of the woodwork to protest any and all aspects of the plan. Things get delayed because the local busybodies bring up as much as they can to either halt the construction entirely or to demand concessions. Some of the regulations make sense for most new projects, but does an existing rail line they’re trying to allow passenger trains on need a new environmental impact study because the locals demanded a new 15 foot high sound wall? It’s already inside of a major city and it’s not like there are any endangered species it’s going to impact.