3 ms·

> Has nothing to do with cookie cutter designs. If you can't build the design, then someone will have to design something else that can be built. If people are

by roenxi 3y ago

> Has nothing to do with cookie cutter designs. If you can't build the design, then someone will have to design something else that can be built. If people aren't already using cookie cutter designs, there is a reason for that. The reason may be one that most people don't like, but it is still going to be there. And I am putting that the reason is probably going to be that the law probably does require consideration of site-specific factors. > Strange how literally everyone in the world can figure this out, but not the US. As mentioned, most of the world doesn't apply US standards and laws. And you're speaking a bit strongly. Most of the world doesn't figure infrastructure out. The median for project management and country-wide governance is dysfunctional failure across most of the globe. You can tell because most people are impoverished despite us having all the tools to sort that out for something like a century.

troupo 3y ago
> If you can't build the design, then someone will have to design something else that can be built. Again. This literally has nothing to do with cookie cutter designs. If something cannot be built in the area because there's some local wildlife, there are exactly two choices: - no building is permitted, period, so you build in a different place (or don't build) - you can build, so you chose the cookie cutter design for the type of construction permitted. E.g. you can't build on the ground, but can build a bridge? You literally take "bridge cookie cutter design N" out of 3 cookie cutter designs for a bridge station (or out of the 15 combinations for a modular station because that's what cookie cutter designs are). > If people aren't already using cookie cutter designs, there is a reason for that. It's not. It's the US' insistence on how special and unique they are. > As mentioned, most of the world doesn't apply US standards and laws. US is not as special as you make it out to be. The world also has "Red Spotted Scuttlers" and different pollution considerations based on locations, etc.
- roenxi 3y ago
  There is a 3rd option - do a custom design that considers site-specific issues. Say there is a project with an unusual requirement. Taking one from my experience, a height limit so that a certain area still gets an appropriate amount of sun. The options are "go", "redesign to be more squat" or "no-go". What I'm giving you is a sketch at how advanced environmental laws actually conflict with the idea of using cookie cutter designs. The ideas are at odds with each other. > The world also has "Red Spotted Scuttlers" Not after a typical infrastructure project. Usually a bunch of habitat gets killed off and it isn't unusual to lose a population of something exotic.
  - troupo 3y ago
    > There is a 3rd option - do a custom design that considers site-specific issues. And this option is extremely rare. > What I'm giving you is a sketch at how advanced environmental laws actually conflict with the idea of using cookie cutter designs. No. What you're giving me is a lie that these are applicable everywhere all the time. You're also trying to sell a lie that the US is so distinct and special and unique that it can't have cookie cutter designs (unlike other countries) because only in the US this applies everywhere all the time. > Not after a typical infrastructure project. Usually a bunch of habitat gets killed off and it isn't unusual to lose a population of something exotic. That is, of course, not as true and not as common as you make it out to be. BTW. I live in Stockholm, in a country obsessed with ecology and pollution etc. Most stations are cookie cutter designs (of course). There's exactly one subway station that never got built precisely because there was endangered wildlife in the area.
    - mercutio2 3y ago
      You are really aggressively arguing that you understand US law while demonstrating repeatedly that you don’t. Why? The core of the argument roenxi is making is that the legal system in the US is *very very different* from that which adheres in Sweden. roenxi at no point argues that the legal system in play in the US is good, or better. They are just saying that because of legal barriers, what you seem to imply is incompetence at the planning level is, in fact, evidence of a poorly designed legal system.
      - troupo 3y ago
        No, what roenxi, and now you are arguing, quite literally, that somehow cookie cutter designs for infrastructure are impossible because somehow laws are so extremely different and impossible to go around for every single one of the infastructure projects that for every single one you will need a bespoke design because environmental protection or something. Which is absolutely blatantly false. BTW, as far as environment protection goes, there's a sibling comment addressing the same: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39511375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39511375 Infrastructure always relies on cookie-cutter designs and/or modular designs, and there's nothing special about the US in this regard except its insistence that it is somehow excluded from common sense.
rsynnott 3y ago
> As mentioned, most of the world doesn't apply US standards and laws. EU environmental protection rules are, generally, rather stricter than those in the US, and Europe does mostly manage to build proper train systems (though not nuclear plants, unless one happens to be France). It's worth noting that the US has no particular problem building _roads_, visiting from Europe, as a country it seems to be about 50% road. I don't think environmental rules are as big a factor as you think they are in the US's train-y woes. EDIT: An interesting point of comparison might be Ireland; like the US, Ireland is a wealthy country which can't build infrastructure to save its life. It has pretty much the same environmental rules as other highly-developed European countries, but hyper-local politics and extreme NIMBYism makes doing anything impossible. There's a proposal at the moment to build a high-speed (ie 300km/h) line from Cork to Dublin to Belfast, but it's more or less tacitly acknowledged that that's the sort of thing you just can't do here, so there is a parallel plan, which may actually happen, to upgrade the existing Cork to Dublin line to fake high speed (ie 200km/h); this is kind of within the realm of the possible in Ireland, in that it doesn't require a new line, so may eventually happen at huge expense. Sound familiar?
- sarchertech 3y ago
  The US appears to be 50% road due to sampling bias because you travel everywhere by road. The US also also has far more freight rail per capita than the EU. It’s less a matter of who is better at building rail, than it is prioritizing freight over passengers.
  - trelane 3y ago
    Kinda. If "road" includes parking, they're not that far off, hyperbole aside. https://parkingreform.org/resources/parking-lot-map/ https://parkingreform.org/resources/parking-lot-map/
    - rsynnott 3y ago
      So, funny thing. Most of my experience of the US has been San Francisco and its immediate area. From my perspective, it's very road-oriented, and has an astonishing amount of space given over to parking; giant tech company offices and new apartment blocks are side by side with massive parking lots. You just don't really see that much in large European cities. Anyway, looks like it's 3% based on that map (though the area I was primarily thinking of falls just outside their definition of 'central', I think), compared to _26%_ for Atlanta. I'm having trouble visualising what that even looks like.

by roenxi 3y ago

troupo 3y ago

> If you can't build the design, then someone will have to design something else that can be built. Again. This literally has nothing to do with cookie cutter designs. If something cannot be built in the area because there's some local wildlife, there are exactly two choices: - no building is permitted, period, so you build in a different place (or don't build) - you can build, so you chose the cookie cutter design for the type of construction permitted. E.g. you can't build on the ground, but can build a bridge? You literally take "bridge cookie cutter design N" out of 3 cookie cutter designs for a bridge station (or out of the 15 combinations for a modular station because that's what cookie cutter designs are). > If people aren't already using cookie cutter designs, there is a reason for that. It's not. It's the US' insistence on how special and unique they are. > As mentioned, most of the world doesn't apply US standards and laws. US is not as special as you make it out to be. The world also has "Red Spotted Scuttlers" and different pollution considerations based on locations, etc.

roenxi 3y ago
There is a 3rd option - do a custom design that considers site-specific issues. Say there is a project with an unusual requirement. Taking one from my experience, a height limit so that a certain area still gets an appropriate amount of sun. The options are "go", "redesign to be more squat" or "no-go". What I'm giving you is a sketch at how advanced environmental laws actually conflict with the idea of using cookie cutter designs. The ideas are at odds with each other. > The world also has "Red Spotted Scuttlers" Not after a typical infrastructure project. Usually a bunch of habitat gets killed off and it isn't unusual to lose a population of something exotic.
- troupo 3y ago
  > There is a 3rd option - do a custom design that considers site-specific issues. And this option is extremely rare. > What I'm giving you is a sketch at how advanced environmental laws actually conflict with the idea of using cookie cutter designs. No. What you're giving me is a lie that these are applicable everywhere all the time. You're also trying to sell a lie that the US is so distinct and special and unique that it can't have cookie cutter designs (unlike other countries) because only in the US this applies everywhere all the time. > Not after a typical infrastructure project. Usually a bunch of habitat gets killed off and it isn't unusual to lose a population of something exotic. That is, of course, not as true and not as common as you make it out to be. BTW. I live in Stockholm, in a country obsessed with ecology and pollution etc. Most stations are cookie cutter designs (of course). There's exactly one subway station that never got built precisely because there was endangered wildlife in the area.
  - mercutio2 3y ago
    You are really aggressively arguing that you understand US law while demonstrating repeatedly that you don’t. Why? The core of the argument roenxi is making is that the legal system in the US is *very very different* from that which adheres in Sweden. roenxi at no point argues that the legal system in play in the US is good, or better. They are just saying that because of legal barriers, what you seem to imply is incompetence at the planning level is, in fact, evidence of a poorly designed legal system.
    - troupo 3y ago
      No, what roenxi, and now you are arguing, quite literally, that somehow cookie cutter designs for infrastructure are impossible because somehow laws are so extremely different and impossible to go around for every single one of the infastructure projects that for every single one you will need a bespoke design because environmental protection or something. Which is absolutely blatantly false. BTW, as far as environment protection goes, there's a sibling comment addressing the same: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39511375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39511375 Infrastructure always relies on cookie-cutter designs and/or modular designs, and there's nothing special about the US in this regard except its insistence that it is somehow excluded from common sense.

rsynnott 3y ago

> As mentioned, most of the world doesn't apply US standards and laws. EU environmental protection rules are, generally, rather stricter than those in the US, and Europe does mostly manage to build proper train systems (though not nuclear plants, unless one happens to be France). It's worth noting that the US has no particular problem building _roads_, visiting from Europe, as a country it seems to be about 50% road. I don't think environmental rules are as big a factor as you think they are in the US's train-y woes. EDIT: An interesting point of comparison might be Ireland; like the US, Ireland is a wealthy country which can't build infrastructure to save its life. It has pretty much the same environmental rules as other highly-developed European countries, but hyper-local politics and extreme NIMBYism makes doing anything impossible. There's a proposal at the moment to build a high-speed (ie 300km/h) line from Cork to Dublin to Belfast, but it's more or less tacitly acknowledged that that's the sort of thing you just can't do here, so there is a parallel plan, which may actually happen, to upgrade the existing Cork to Dublin line to fake high speed (ie 200km/h); this is kind of within the realm of the possible in Ireland, in that it doesn't require a new line, so may eventually happen at huge expense. Sound familiar?

sarchertech 3y ago
The US appears to be 50% road due to sampling bias because you travel everywhere by road. The US also also has far more freight rail per capita than the EU. It’s less a matter of who is better at building rail, than it is prioritizing freight over passengers.
- trelane 3y ago
  Kinda. If "road" includes parking, they're not that far off, hyperbole aside. https://parkingreform.org/resources/parking-lot-map/ https://parkingreform.org/resources/parking-lot-map/
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    So, funny thing. Most of my experience of the US has been San Francisco and its immediate area. From my perspective, it's very road-oriented, and has an astonishing amount of space given over to parking; giant tech company offices and new apartment blocks are side by side with massive parking lots. You just don't really see that much in large European cities. Anyway, looks like it's 3% based on that map (though the area I was primarily thinking of falls just outside their definition of 'central', I think), compared to _26%_ for Atlanta. I'm having trouble visualising what that even looks like.