7 ms·

I never thought about the length in time it takes to build things in the US today when compared to previous time periods in the US. I had to double-check this

I never thought about the length in time it takes to build things in the US today when compared to previous time periods in the US. I had to double-check this but it did really take 4 years to complete initial construction of the NYC subway system; however, what's failed to mention in the article is that a plan was approved to build the NYC system 6 years prior. In total, it took 10 years of planning and construction to actually have an initial system in place. Even though the author failed to mentioned the planning period in that instance, it doesn't take away from his argument that things are slower today in getting large projects built or renovated due to legal and political structures that stop each of these from happening through procedural delays. I have a great local example of this. My interstate bridge has been in need of repair for the last 30 years, but nothing has been done of it due to so many groups getting in the way. It's been a nightmare and that bridge is very much needed for the local community to stay as strong as it is. I believe the political will to do anything has vanished out of frustration.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
Building and planning are two very different things, you can't lump them together.
selimthegrim 5y ago
I presume this is Portland OR to Vancouver WA?
- CSSer 5y ago
  It could just as easily be Cincinnati, OH. That’s how bad our infrastructure has gotten.
- runarberg 5y ago
  The I-5 Columbia river replacement bridge just recently got a ton of funding from the WA state legislator, so maybe things are finally moving forward. However I guess delaying the project has been bickering on what to actually put on the bridge. E.g. they want to more then double the car lane count, then they also want light rail on there, and potentially even high speed rail. This feels like a classic case of overdesign.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I do not see how incorporating mass transit is over design for something expected to last 100+ years. Especially for a region that has been adding tens of thousands of people per year for 10+ years, at an increasing pace.
    - runarberg 5y ago
      Neither do I, however WSDOT has not released any details on the project but their renderings indicate they want to widen the freeway to some 10+ lane monstrosity[1]. Meanwhile Cascadia High Speed Rail has ideas about replacing the existing BNSF/Amtrak bridge with a double deck four track + four care lane bridge in addition to the I-5 bridge[2]. This combined makes a ridiculous amount of car lanes and railway tracks, plus a redundant bridge. There must be a better—and cheaper—way to cross this river. 1: https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/02/18/dont-widen-highways-invest-2-billion-in-affordable-housing-instead/#columbia-river-crossing-a-zombie-project-back-from-the-dead https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/02/18/dont-widen-highways-i... 2: https://cascadiahighspeedrail.com/portland-to-seattle/ https://cascadiahighspeedrail.com/portland-to-seattle/
jmclnx 5y ago
Believe it or not, New Hampshire does pretty well with building bridges, I saw them build a large bridge within 6 months and it seems roads are kept in a decent shape. In a nearby state where I am, I think it can outdo what you see in your state. Took 10 years to replace a very small bridge across some railroad tracks. That road was closed for 10+ years. Over rivers ? Where I am, I suggest before you cross, open all your vehicle windows and wear a life preserver, I am serious.
- tonystubblebine 5y ago
  I’ve wondered about state level differences too. Most of the east coast has terrible roads. That’s especially true in NYC where I live. But I did a trip down to Delaware and was on freeways like I’d never seen in the US. Just really nice. Are some states just run much better?
  - agundy 5y ago
    Winter and salt are both hard on roads with lots of freeze thaw cycles putting cracks in the road. So Delaware is an apples and oranges comparison. Delaware is going to have a lot less winter wear on their roads.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    It varies county by county too. “Conscientious Republican” counties—like in Northern VA when I was growing up in the 1990s, or California from the 60s to the 80s—are the most well run. I live in a traditionally red county in Maryland (went Romney 2012, split evenly in 2016) and everything is super well run.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      Alternate take: most places where people actually live are governed by Democrats, because Democrats dominate urban areas, and most people live in urban areas. Places with single-party dominance tend to be poorly governed (for instance: the Illinois Democratic party, the Kansas Republican party). When Republicans survive in Democratic areas (for instance: Massachusetts Republican governors) they tend to do well; presumably, Democrats managing in red states do well too, but we don't hear so much about them, because people tend not to live in red counties (they tend to be rural, not urban). It's mostly party machines that are the problem, not the particular parties.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 5y ago
Note that the 4.5 years cited for the NEPA process is just the average time to reach an initial decision. It doesn’t include the years of litigation challenging that decision that inevitably follows for any significant project. My kid’s school tried to convert a declining golf course in a residential area into athletic fields. We’re not talking about a Texas high school football stadium—its some ball fields and tennis courts for an artsy school where sports doesn’t exactly attract big crowds. They were tied up in litigation for the better part of a decade. They spent half as much on the litigation as in purchasing the property.
- asdff 5y ago
  Coincidentally I've been supporting trying to keep around a local golf course over letting a local private school expand athletic fields on it in my area. In my eyes the golf course is better for the community. People from all ages from the local area come there to play cheap golf or tennis and get reasonably priced lessons. Meanwhile if this plan were to go through, suddenly that area is private and reserved for rich people who can afford tuition at this private school, and all those opportunities for local people to get some activity outdoors vanish for good. Plus that school in question already has athletic facilities, these would just look more collegiate looking I guess...
  - hyperhopper 5y ago
    So you're exactly who the article is talking about: what methods or rationale are you using to try to prevent the new construction?
    - asdff 5y ago
      I've just been trying to reach out to my local representatives and express support for preservation of the course. There are already a number of grassroots campaigns that have been keeping me current on developments. I can only hope it all works out though and this space remains for the public; the bad guys seem to win more often than not and the sitting councilman whose district this course falls into certainly has an amicable relationship with the school.
madengr 5y ago
Ericson2314 5y ago
That was 6 years of planning mostly what to do, presumably. Another problem with the US legal environment is that all this "planning" effort we do now goes into the whether, not the what. That means despite 1000s of pages, final designs are often lousy and ad-hoc, rather than a plank in a longer term integrated vision. Public transit makes the problem especially clear, as the benefits for integration vs random flashy projects to hype up the Andrew Cuomo du jour is extremely stark.
runarberg 5y ago
When I think about American infrastructure projects in the 70s I think about all the minority neighborhoods they ploughed through and all the roads they closed during the entire construction livetime. I don’t know how accurate that historical perception is, but if it is that is not how things are done today (thankfully). E.g. I’ve been observing the planning of ST3 in Seattle, and they indeed compromise on design all the time in order to displace as few people and businesses as possible, and they often end up with a much more expensive and much longer building times in order to allow traffic to flow (mostly) unhindered during construction. Without those constraints I bet building would be far quicker. (that being said neither of those are excuses for why it has taken over 2 years to fix the West Seattle bridge). Interestingly those two constraints clash in the new International District/Chinatown station. One of the alternatives would displace and disrupt more minority owned businesses on the 5th Ave. while the other would disrupt traffic flow for 5-6 years on the 4th Ave. Curiously this is one of really few portions of the ST3 plan where they don’t have a preferred alternative.
- doublerebel 5y ago
  For the ID station, I think the idea to bring Union Station back to life and use existing infrastructure to connect the multiple rail options at the same level is by far the best solution. It will pay dividends long-term. https://www.theurbanist.org/2018/04/16/better-transit-hub-people-union-station-see-trains/ https://www.theurbanist.org/2018/04/16/better-transit-hub-pe...
- ipsin 5y ago
  Yes, it was definitely a thing. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/984784455/a-brief-history-of-how-racism-shaped-interstate-highways https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/984784455/a-brief-history-of-... In Los Angeles the two closest lessons I took were the 210 Freeway in Pasadena (which literally cut through poorer, Blacker neighborhoods) and the 710 Freeway which was supposed to connect to it. The last part of the 710 Freeway was meant to go through a richer, whiter neighborhood. Some houses were purchased, but the connector was held up in lawsuits from at least the 1970s, and remains unfinished to this day.
ec109685 5y ago
One thing they do now is get a half of a plan in place without any idea of how to fund the rest, so that ends up drawing things out. "Hard to argue that promises were not kept, but something has to be done with an already started project. In that light, one thinks of former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown’s principle, “In the world of civic projects, the first budget is really just a down payment. If people knew the real cost from the start, nothing would ever be approved. The idea is to get going. Start digging a hole and make it so big, there’s no alternative to coming up with the money to fill it in.” " https://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/story/opinion/2019/02/13/what-do-high-speed-rail-hole-ground/2860894002/ https://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/story/opinion/2019/02/13/w...

stjohnswarts 5y ago

Building and planning are two very different things, you can't lump them together.

selimthegrim 5y ago

I presume this is Portland OR to Vancouver WA?

CSSer 5y ago
It could just as easily be Cincinnati, OH. That’s how bad our infrastructure has gotten.
runarberg 5y ago
The I-5 Columbia river replacement bridge just recently got a ton of funding from the WA state legislator, so maybe things are finally moving forward. However I guess delaying the project has been bickering on what to actually put on the bridge. E.g. they want to more then double the car lane count, then they also want light rail on there, and potentially even high speed rail. This feels like a classic case of overdesign.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I do not see how incorporating mass transit is over design for something expected to last 100+ years. Especially for a region that has been adding tens of thousands of people per year for 10+ years, at an increasing pace.
  - runarberg 5y ago
    Neither do I, however WSDOT has not released any details on the project but their renderings indicate they want to widen the freeway to some 10+ lane monstrosity[1]. Meanwhile Cascadia High Speed Rail has ideas about replacing the existing BNSF/Amtrak bridge with a double deck four track + four care lane bridge in addition to the I-5 bridge[2]. This combined makes a ridiculous amount of car lanes and railway tracks, plus a redundant bridge. There must be a better—and cheaper—way to cross this river. 1: https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/02/18/dont-widen-highways-invest-2-billion-in-affordable-housing-instead/#columbia-river-crossing-a-zombie-project-back-from-the-dead https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/02/18/dont-widen-highways-i... 2: https://cascadiahighspeedrail.com/portland-to-seattle/ https://cascadiahighspeedrail.com/portland-to-seattle/

jmclnx 5y ago

Believe it or not, New Hampshire does pretty well with building bridges, I saw them build a large bridge within 6 months and it seems roads are kept in a decent shape. In a nearby state where I am, I think it can outdo what you see in your state. Took 10 years to replace a very small bridge across some railroad tracks. That road was closed for 10+ years. Over rivers ? Where I am, I suggest before you cross, open all your vehicle windows and wear a life preserver, I am serious.

tonystubblebine 5y ago
I’ve wondered about state level differences too. Most of the east coast has terrible roads. That’s especially true in NYC where I live. But I did a trip down to Delaware and was on freeways like I’d never seen in the US. Just really nice. Are some states just run much better?
- agundy 5y ago
  Winter and salt are both hard on roads with lots of freeze thaw cycles putting cracks in the road. So Delaware is an apples and oranges comparison. Delaware is going to have a lot less winter wear on their roads.
- rayiner 5y ago
  It varies county by county too. “Conscientious Republican” counties—like in Northern VA when I was growing up in the 1990s, or California from the 60s to the 80s—are the most well run. I live in a traditionally red county in Maryland (went Romney 2012, split evenly in 2016) and everything is super well run.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Alternate take: most places where people actually live are governed by Democrats, because Democrats dominate urban areas, and most people live in urban areas. Places with single-party dominance tend to be poorly governed (for instance: the Illinois Democratic party, the Kansas Republican party). When Republicans survive in Democratic areas (for instance: Massachusetts Republican governors) they tend to do well; presumably, Democrats managing in red states do well too, but we don't hear so much about them, because people tend not to live in red counties (they tend to be rural, not urban). It's mostly party machines that are the problem, not the particular parties.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 5y ago

Note that the 4.5 years cited for the NEPA process is just the average time to reach an initial decision. It doesn’t include the years of litigation challenging that decision that inevitably follows for any significant project. My kid’s school tried to convert a declining golf course in a residential area into athletic fields. We’re not talking about a Texas high school football stadium—its some ball fields and tennis courts for an artsy school where sports doesn’t exactly attract big crowds. They were tied up in litigation for the better part of a decade. They spent half as much on the litigation as in purchasing the property.

asdff 5y ago
Coincidentally I've been supporting trying to keep around a local golf course over letting a local private school expand athletic fields on it in my area. In my eyes the golf course is better for the community. People from all ages from the local area come there to play cheap golf or tennis and get reasonably priced lessons. Meanwhile if this plan were to go through, suddenly that area is private and reserved for rich people who can afford tuition at this private school, and all those opportunities for local people to get some activity outdoors vanish for good. Plus that school in question already has athletic facilities, these would just look more collegiate looking I guess...
- hyperhopper 5y ago
  So you're exactly who the article is talking about: what methods or rationale are you using to try to prevent the new construction?
  - asdff 5y ago
    I've just been trying to reach out to my local representatives and express support for preservation of the course. There are already a number of grassroots campaigns that have been keeping me current on developments. I can only hope it all works out though and this space remains for the public; the bad guys seem to win more often than not and the sitting councilman whose district this course falls into certainly has an amicable relationship with the school.

madengr 5y ago

Ericson2314 5y ago

That was 6 years of planning mostly what to do, presumably. Another problem with the US legal environment is that all this "planning" effort we do now goes into the whether, not the what. That means despite 1000s of pages, final designs are often lousy and ad-hoc, rather than a plank in a longer term integrated vision. Public transit makes the problem especially clear, as the benefits for integration vs random flashy projects to hype up the Andrew Cuomo du jour is extremely stark.

runarberg 5y ago

When I think about American infrastructure projects in the 70s I think about all the minority neighborhoods they ploughed through and all the roads they closed during the entire construction livetime. I don’t know how accurate that historical perception is, but if it is that is not how things are done today (thankfully). E.g. I’ve been observing the planning of ST3 in Seattle, and they indeed compromise on design all the time in order to displace as few people and businesses as possible, and they often end up with a much more expensive and much longer building times in order to allow traffic to flow (mostly) unhindered during construction. Without those constraints I bet building would be far quicker. (that being said neither of those are excuses for why it has taken over 2 years to fix the West Seattle bridge). Interestingly those two constraints clash in the new International District/Chinatown station. One of the alternatives would displace and disrupt more minority owned businesses on the 5th Ave. while the other would disrupt traffic flow for 5-6 years on the 4th Ave. Curiously this is one of really few portions of the ST3 plan where they don’t have a preferred alternative.

doublerebel 5y ago
For the ID station, I think the idea to bring Union Station back to life and use existing infrastructure to connect the multiple rail options at the same level is by far the best solution. It will pay dividends long-term. https://www.theurbanist.org/2018/04/16/better-transit-hub-people-union-station-see-trains/ https://www.theurbanist.org/2018/04/16/better-transit-hub-pe...
ipsin 5y ago
Yes, it was definitely a thing. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/984784455/a-brief-history-of-how-racism-shaped-interstate-highways https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/984784455/a-brief-history-of-... In Los Angeles the two closest lessons I took were the 210 Freeway in Pasadena (which literally cut through poorer, Blacker neighborhoods) and the 710 Freeway which was supposed to connect to it. The last part of the 710 Freeway was meant to go through a richer, whiter neighborhood. Some houses were purchased, but the connector was held up in lawsuits from at least the 1970s, and remains unfinished to this day.

ec109685 5y ago

One thing they do now is get a half of a plan in place without any idea of how to fund the rest, so that ends up drawing things out. "Hard to argue that promises were not kept, but something has to be done with an already started project. In that light, one thinks of former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown’s principle, “In the world of civic projects, the first budget is really just a down payment. If people knew the real cost from the start, nothing would ever be approved. The idea is to get going. Start digging a hole and make it so big, there’s no alternative to coming up with the money to fill it in.” " https://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/story/opinion/2019/02/13/what-do-high-speed-rail-hole-ground/2860894002/ https://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/story/opinion/2019/02/13/w...