4 ms·

I agree that that comment summarizes what appears to be your argument “you can build infrastructure cheaper even with restrictive environmental protections”. T

I agree that that comment summarizes what appears to be your argument “you can build infrastructure cheaper even with restrictive environmental protections”. The response from rayiner explains why this argument misses the point. It’s not about terminal goals being more or less virtuous in the US. It’s about the *process* for building in the US having many points of potential legal interaction that lead to delays and redesign requirements. And that legal system is quite different from how large projects are able to be executed in the rest of the developed world. The US used to build large projects this way, but there was a large populist movement that pushed to add more local veto opportunities. Those vetoes are extremely expensive at the macro level.

troupo 3y ago
Funnily enough how you can build cookie-cutter parking lots everywhere. Cookie-cutter roads everywhere. Cookie-cutter shopping malls and gas stations everywhere. But any other bit of infrastructure? "oh no, local laws would not permit it because difficult legal landscape". So this let me get this straight. This https://maps.app.goo.gl/Y7cvszoFfzxmAG6Q8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/Y7cvszoFfzxmAG6Q8 (Aurora, CO) and this https://maps.app.goo.gl/ByZfS93g82C1NkjdA https://maps.app.goo.gl/ByZfS93g82C1NkjdA (Derry, NH) and this https://maps.app.goo.gl/uUEdDNtcK5MfHZUW8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/uUEdDNtcK5MfHZUW8 (Ankeny, IA) and literally hundreds if not thousands of these can be built from cookie-cutter designs so that they are really indistinguishable from each other. But when we talk about anything else, it's "impossible because US is like no other and also you have to make sure there's site-specific design because advanced environment laws actually conflict with the idea of using cookie cutter designs" or something
- mercutio2 3y ago
  You keep arguing with a strawman. I’m not sure why. No one is saying “advanced” environmental laws directly conflict with building specific projects. First, I would never call these laws advanced. They’re bad laws, in my opinion. Second, what they do is not forbid specific designs. Instead, they allow many different entities to exercise fairly arbitrary veto power over large projects, unless their idiosyncratic demands are met. To first order approximation, it is the idiosyncratic demands of unpredictable groups of complainants with the power to use lawsuits to delay projects, that lead to large bespoke projects. The core of the argument is that the folks planning and designing those projects are responding to the threat of lawsuits. Most other countries have one feedback period, rather than allowing an arbitrary number of unknown groups to embroil projects in delaying lawsuits at many different points during planning and construction.
  - troupo 3y ago
    > No one is saying “advanced” environmental laws directly conflict with building specific projects. Why do you think I put quotes in my last sentence? Let's see. Perhaps because it was a quote? Literally? --- start quote --- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39510603 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39510603 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. --- end quote --- > The core of the argument is that the folks planning and designing those projects are responding to the threat of lawsuits. Most other countries have one feedback period People keep saying this is impossible to do a) cheaply and b) cookie-cutter style because "laws" whereas the US is littered with cookie-cutter designs indistinguishable from each other in scale much larger than anything we're discussing. It's not that it's impossible. It's that for some reason the US is a) ignorant, b) assumes it's unique and special in each and every shape or form, c) extremely allergic to any kind of infrastructure except roads. And then that same US turns around, paves an area the size of Pentagon in a village with population of 1000, and plops immense cookie-cutter designs there and no one blinks an eye.
    - mercutio2 3y ago
      The original text did not include the word “directly”, which, ironically, is the reason your quote is not direct, and directly vs. indirectly is the substance of our disagreement.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      Are you a non-native English speaker? You do seem to be picking a confusingly aggressive tone given that the topic is infrastructure, and I'm not sure if I should be attributing that to culture clash or if it is just a standard misunderstanding. 1. The context behind that quote was "nuclear reactors, bridges, stations". As far as I know parking lots are being built by private interests on private land and there is no regulatory body responsible for parking lots. So it would make sense that they use good design principles. 2. I wouldn't trust the cookie-cutter impression from looking at roads so much; the design isn't as much in the road itself as in where the road goes and flattening out / tunnelling through/bridging over the local environment (your example earlier of the Swedish Metro, according to Wikipedia, is actually interesting from this aspect because apparently they're putting more of the new parts underground for environmental reasons - if so that is quite slow and expensive relative to above ground construction). In my estimation it isn't that usual to get stories of road projects that are turned in knots due to environmental factors. But if you want to take roads as different that is fine by me. The US does like building roads, maybe they've got the regulation for that under control. 3. > Why do you think I put quotes in my last sentence? I thought it was for emphasis. It isn't a direct quote because you're the person who is talking about impossible things or the US being special - I've been saying US law adds a layer of complications and drives costs up. It only makes things impossible in extreme cases (like what we see with the death of the US nuclear industry).

troupo 3y ago

Funnily enough how you can build cookie-cutter parking lots everywhere. Cookie-cutter roads everywhere. Cookie-cutter shopping malls and gas stations everywhere. But any other bit of infrastructure? "oh no, local laws would not permit it because difficult legal landscape". So this let me get this straight. This https://maps.app.goo.gl/Y7cvszoFfzxmAG6Q8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/Y7cvszoFfzxmAG6Q8 (Aurora, CO) and this https://maps.app.goo.gl/ByZfS93g82C1NkjdA https://maps.app.goo.gl/ByZfS93g82C1NkjdA (Derry, NH) and this https://maps.app.goo.gl/uUEdDNtcK5MfHZUW8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/uUEdDNtcK5MfHZUW8 (Ankeny, IA) and literally hundreds if not thousands of these can be built from cookie-cutter designs so that they are really indistinguishable from each other. But when we talk about anything else, it's "impossible because US is like no other and also you have to make sure there's site-specific design because advanced environment laws actually conflict with the idea of using cookie cutter designs" or something

mercutio2 3y ago
You keep arguing with a strawman. I’m not sure why. No one is saying “advanced” environmental laws directly conflict with building specific projects. First, I would never call these laws advanced. They’re bad laws, in my opinion. Second, what they do is not forbid specific designs. Instead, they allow many different entities to exercise fairly arbitrary veto power over large projects, unless their idiosyncratic demands are met. To first order approximation, it is the idiosyncratic demands of unpredictable groups of complainants with the power to use lawsuits to delay projects, that lead to large bespoke projects. The core of the argument is that the folks planning and designing those projects are responding to the threat of lawsuits. Most other countries have one feedback period, rather than allowing an arbitrary number of unknown groups to embroil projects in delaying lawsuits at many different points during planning and construction.
- troupo 3y ago
  > No one is saying “advanced” environmental laws directly conflict with building specific projects. Why do you think I put quotes in my last sentence? Let's see. Perhaps because it was a quote? Literally? --- start quote --- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39510603 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39510603 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. --- end quote --- > The core of the argument is that the folks planning and designing those projects are responding to the threat of lawsuits. Most other countries have one feedback period People keep saying this is impossible to do a) cheaply and b) cookie-cutter style because "laws" whereas the US is littered with cookie-cutter designs indistinguishable from each other in scale much larger than anything we're discussing. It's not that it's impossible. It's that for some reason the US is a) ignorant, b) assumes it's unique and special in each and every shape or form, c) extremely allergic to any kind of infrastructure except roads. And then that same US turns around, paves an area the size of Pentagon in a village with population of 1000, and plops immense cookie-cutter designs there and no one blinks an eye.
  - mercutio2 3y ago
    The original text did not include the word “directly”, which, ironically, is the reason your quote is not direct, and directly vs. indirectly is the substance of our disagreement.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    Are you a non-native English speaker? You do seem to be picking a confusingly aggressive tone given that the topic is infrastructure, and I'm not sure if I should be attributing that to culture clash or if it is just a standard misunderstanding. 1. The context behind that quote was "nuclear reactors, bridges, stations". As far as I know parking lots are being built by private interests on private land and there is no regulatory body responsible for parking lots. So it would make sense that they use good design principles. 2. I wouldn't trust the cookie-cutter impression from looking at roads so much; the design isn't as much in the road itself as in where the road goes and flattening out / tunnelling through/bridging over the local environment (your example earlier of the Swedish Metro, according to Wikipedia, is actually interesting from this aspect because apparently they're putting more of the new parts underground for environmental reasons - if so that is quite slow and expensive relative to above ground construction). In my estimation it isn't that usual to get stories of road projects that are turned in knots due to environmental factors. But if you want to take roads as different that is fine by me. The US does like building roads, maybe they've got the regulation for that under control. 3. > Why do you think I put quotes in my last sentence? I thought it was for emphasis. It isn't a direct quote because you're the person who is talking about impossible things or the US being special - I've been saying US law adds a layer of complications and drives costs up. It only makes things impossible in extreme cases (like what we see with the death of the US nuclear industry).