4 ms·
What if investors poured 9 billion into making light rail cheaper, and then 1 billion into light rail? Where would we be then? Other countries don't spend 2 bil
by inigyou 3mo ago
What if investors poured 9 billion into making light rail cheaper, and then 1 billion into light rail? Where would we be then? Other countries don't spend 2 billion dollars a mile. Hire the best engineers from Europe and Asia.
- my123 3mo agoA big chunk of the problem is planning/political: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_(Maryland) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_(Maryland) > A March 2025 report by the Maryland comptroller's office found that permitting and legal fees for the project, originally budgeted at $6 million, had actually consumed roughly $800 million, thanks to two lawsuits and the contract renegotiations Better tech cannot solve that on its own, the problem is not even there.
- inigyou 3mo agoThat's still only 3% of the money per track length that we're talking about here.
- tetromino_ 3mo agoMy guess is that the indirect impact might have been in the tens of %. One of the biggest (if not the biggest) reasons for enormous construction costs is delays which make an efficient construction timetable impossible, and two lawsuits of course result in a long and enormously unpredictable delay.
- s1artibartfast 3mo agoLike the sibling said, It is mostly legal and political gridlock, not engineering. They would have to put that 9 billion into a political takeover of the US government, a major rewriting of environmental and property laws, and silencing/steamrolling opposing interest groups. This is a pretty tall order.
- inigyou 3mo agoThey managed it for AI. How much did it cost for AI?
- s1artibartfast 3mo agoHumm, interesting idea to compare and contrast the two changes? I dont think AI cost much at all because politicians were largely supportive to begin with, and the legal changes were small if any. It would be different if you had to replace them all or change their mind on a deeply held issue.