5 ms·

This ignores the fact that European countries are able to complete infrastructure projects with better worker protections and tighter environmental controls for

by tomgp 3y ago

This ignores the fact that European countries are able to complete infrastructure projects with better worker protections and tighter environmental controls for a fraction of the cost. I haven’t read the article in question but follow Alon’s blog where he provides ample examples of this… https://pedestrianobservations.com/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/

roenxi 3y ago
I'm sure they are, but that is not quite addressing what I'm saying. I'm saying that building an effective transit system obviously isn't the purpose of the systems that control New York's transit. There are interest groups prioritising objectives other than building the infrastructure. Otherwise it is impossible to justify the actual outcomes of these projects - it goes waaaaay beyond incompetence and although everyone identifies a different interest group there is consensus that they exist. And my personal point is that the US (anglosphere, really) has a lot of systems to identify minority interest groups and make satisfying them a key part of completing a project. And therefore the problem isn't that people are refusing to learn, the problem is that building infrastructure isn't a priority. Someone who builds good infrastructure doesn't have any useful lessons to share, because that wasn't Goal #1. The people with veto power over the projects would like the infrastructure, sure, but if it doesn't get built cheaply and too a good standard then that isn't going to be a shock to the system that causes change. This article is subtly suggesting that there is a competence problem. I'm saying no, I think the people involved in this are plenty competent. There are just interest groups with enough power to scuttle the project and they need to be identified and negotiated with.
- gumby 3y ago
  I think the US (and perhaps all other countries) have plenty of experience running roughshod over local interests. In the US case big infrastructure programs of the 50s were typically built on black communities; in the mid 1850s Hausmann built the central Paris of today by demolishing whatever he wanted. It’s a positive thing that people’s interests are heard as infrastructure is for everyone. If there’s going to be a road, water treatment plant, or courthouse it has to be built somewhere, so some sacrifice has to be made, but better that there is some discussion, no? There has been a destructive and cynical view of the commonweal for the last 40-50 years which has made these discussion completely oppositional but that doesn’t have to be the case. The article touches on this.
- krisoft 3y ago
  > I'm saying that building an effective transit system obviously isn't the purpose of the systems that control New York's transit. You were not saying that. You said "The problem is things that are politically desirable are incompatible with a cheap & high quality product." That is an absolute statement. These two things are incompatible. It is not possible to have both. To which tomgp responded with an example where seemingly they have both. The things which you said are incompatible with each other. And then just after that you say that the "systems that control New York's transit" is basically corrupt. So which one is it? Because these two are two very different situations and switching from one to the other feels quite dishonest to be honest with you.
- danhor 3y ago
  One of the most egregious issues with the second avenue extension is that the underground portion is way larger than comparable systems. A large part of this is backoffic space (which should be overground and consolidated, like everywhere else), which no minority interest group is interest in. And you can see that: In the next Phase they have reduced the backoffice space (which no passenger will ever notice) due to cost pressures (saving over a billion, I think) and no one complained.The same is true for many other examples. This is also noticable elsewhere. When looking at german planning, they reference other german projects and rarely projects of the sourrounding countries, and thus often don't notice the lessons learned there.

by tomgp 3y ago

roenxi 3y ago

I'm sure they are, but that is not quite addressing what I'm saying. I'm saying that building an effective transit system obviously isn't the purpose of the systems that control New York's transit. There are interest groups prioritising objectives other than building the infrastructure. Otherwise it is impossible to justify the actual outcomes of these projects - it goes waaaaay beyond incompetence and although everyone identifies a different interest group there is consensus that they exist. And my personal point is that the US (anglosphere, really) has a lot of systems to identify minority interest groups and make satisfying them a key part of completing a project. And therefore the problem isn't that people are refusing to learn, the problem is that building infrastructure isn't a priority. Someone who builds good infrastructure doesn't have any useful lessons to share, because that wasn't Goal #1. The people with veto power over the projects would like the infrastructure, sure, but if it doesn't get built cheaply and too a good standard then that isn't going to be a shock to the system that causes change. This article is subtly suggesting that there is a competence problem. I'm saying no, I think the people involved in this are plenty competent. There are just interest groups with enough power to scuttle the project and they need to be identified and negotiated with.

gumby 3y ago
I think the US (and perhaps all other countries) have plenty of experience running roughshod over local interests. In the US case big infrastructure programs of the 50s were typically built on black communities; in the mid 1850s Hausmann built the central Paris of today by demolishing whatever he wanted. It’s a positive thing that people’s interests are heard as infrastructure is for everyone. If there’s going to be a road, water treatment plant, or courthouse it has to be built somewhere, so some sacrifice has to be made, but better that there is some discussion, no? There has been a destructive and cynical view of the commonweal for the last 40-50 years which has made these discussion completely oppositional but that doesn’t have to be the case. The article touches on this.
krisoft 3y ago
> I'm saying that building an effective transit system obviously isn't the purpose of the systems that control New York's transit. You were not saying that. You said "The problem is things that are politically desirable are incompatible with a cheap & high quality product." That is an absolute statement. These two things are incompatible. It is not possible to have both. To which tomgp responded with an example where seemingly they have both. The things which you said are incompatible with each other. And then just after that you say that the "systems that control New York's transit" is basically corrupt. So which one is it? Because these two are two very different situations and switching from one to the other feels quite dishonest to be honest with you.
danhor 3y ago
One of the most egregious issues with the second avenue extension is that the underground portion is way larger than comparable systems. A large part of this is backoffic space (which should be overground and consolidated, like everywhere else), which no minority interest group is interest in. And you can see that: In the next Phase they have reduced the backoffice space (which no passenger will ever notice) due to cost pressures (saving over a billion, I think) and no one complained.The same is true for many other examples. This is also noticable elsewhere. When looking at german planning, they reference other german projects and rarely projects of the sourrounding countries, and thus often don't notice the lessons learned there.