Most of the comments here seem to be decidedly pro-building-big-stuff. As though that were obviously in the interest of the greater good, and everyone should ju

Most of the comments here seem to be decidedly pro-building-big-stuff. As though that were obviously in the interest of the greater good, and everyone should just get with the program. But the primary exhibit in the author’s opinion is a project that, by his own account, probably should never have been undertaken. So let’s ask a question. What if the hurdles and pushback, (which the author identifies as environmental reviews, pushback from local communities, and unions) are performing a necessary function (but doing so inefficiently). What if they are saying something that shouldn’t be ignored? What if we shouldn’t be building huge freeways (odd that all the examples are roads and bridges—-what about energy projects)? What if that investment went into methodically reshaping our cities to be walkable, livable, sustainable, fed from locally grown food, integrated with wild space… Just consider the amount of concrete it takes to build one of these megastructures. Concrete alone accounts for 8% of global CO2 emissions [0]. What would happen if you accounted for that cost in addition to the billions of dollars spent on a one-minute-per-mile faster commute. (If only there were some power to the irony of wasting CO2 emissions for the sake of enabling more cars on the road. See Braess’ Paradox [1] and Jevons Paradox) Maybe environmental concerns are right. Maybe labor concerns are right. Maybe we need to integrate the values they represent into planning, rather than making them file lawsuits. Maybe we should think more carefully about what we should build. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02612-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02612-5 [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox