Governments and the polities they govern are like container ships. It takes a long time to change course even after the decision is made. Sadly, in SF, the damage has already been done and it won't be undone by recalling a single DA or merely proposing to fund public safety.
Nice anecdote. Have you heard the one about the tech CTO that got stabbed to death? We have data about this too and it's very much trending in the wrong direction.
If you're tired of arguing with people who are begging you to care about their lives, you can always just remain silent.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
This is a simplistic take. European and East Asian democracies build infrastructure far faster and cheaper than the U.S. Often with even more stringent safety regulations and higher standards of quality.
The question we are tasked with answering is: why?
Basically all of them, and at 1/2 to 1/10 of the cost. Spain, Italy, the Nordic countries, and Turkey are all much more efficient at building infrastructure than the US.
Wow it takes effort to be slower than Italy. :) There are some infamous cases here of highways taking decades to complete (and also some positive experiences such as an awesome high speed rail network).
I think it depends heavily on which infrastructure you're talking about though and what parts of the project you're considering. Some countries may be faster at obtaining permits and/or finding the money, and others may be faster at actually building the thing; my impression is that Italy absolutely sucks at the former, but some projects are also slowed down by the sheer amount of archaeological finds that you stumble upon when digging under Rome or Naples.
Yeah, we are much worse than Italy. There is basically no example of a major transit project in the US being done fast and on budget in the last couple of decades. Here in Maryland we are almost 5 years behind schedule building a light rail line through some suburbs: https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/01/19/pur.... For the same money, and in far less time, Copenhagen built an entire fully automated subway under the city.
Copenhagen is in Denmark how does that say anything about Italy?
Anyway, European countries have plenty of boondoggles. Germany’s Berlin Brandenburg Airport was a 30 year project requiring multiple legal battles etc. construction took 11 years where the initial €2.83 billion budget over ran to €6.5 billion due to massive design flaws, construction issues, poor management, multiple lawsuits etc.
Asia has similar issues, China for example does plenty of big infrastructure projects because its infrastructure is so behind, but it’s projects have massive issues. The Three Gorges Dam for example ballooned from $8.35 billion to $37 billion.
I’m pretty sure he’s aware of which country Copenhagen is in but was simply pointing out as an example a much harder large, complex project in a dense urban environment built in far less time.
The key thing to understand is that while other countries have some boondoggles, the United States does almost nothing else despite spending massive amounts of money. The Purple Line mentioned was ostensibly going to be cheaper due to a public-private partnership but that ended in delays and greater costs as those almost always do, and the same was true of a highway expansion Maryland was trying to do with an Australian partner, and just about every other major American road, rail, bridge, bus station, etc. project is similar. Even our bike lanes take ages to build for the relatively small amount of work.
I agree with the theory that much of this is due to hollowing out the civil service as a “cost savings” measure – these projects sound like what I’ve seen at large organizations where they want a software project without hiring developers so they bring in one consulting company to do the work, and after the first round of failures, a second to oversee the first. Even if everyone is actually acting in good faith it’s just inefficient when you have multiple parties and difficulties sharing or acting on institutional knowledge.
US does plenty of large construction projects without major issue.
One World Trade Center a public/private partnership started construction April 27, 2006 and opened on November 3, 2014 at the cost of 3.9 billion. Which is easily in line with similar projects around the world, even though it was much slower than such projects back in the 1920’s.
It’s a more complicated building than those 1920’s designs booth from modern standards + features like AC, but also because it was designed to survive an attack.
PS: The Copenhagen Metro has been a 28+ year project that’s gone well but it’s hardly that amazing on its own. Planning began in 1992, the first construction started in 1996, first line opened in 2002 and the project is still continuing with only 12.7 miles in operation. By comparison the DC metro system is currently 129 miles long of which about 50 miles are underground with construction starting in December 9, 1969 and the first 4.6 mile segment opening in March 27, 1976.
We’re talking about infrastructure projects, which tend to be harder because they have more shared points of contention – e.g. the one rayiner mentioned was repeatedly held up by questions like whether homeowners who’d illegally fenced public land into their backyards had some right to keep it, which had to be fought up to the highest court in the state. The NIMBYs also tried things like claiming that it was uniquely endangering a rare amphipod, unlike the houses and roads they did support, etc.
WTC did not have anything like that to worry about and an exceptional level of political will to keep it on schedule.
I wonder to what extent this is due to unique features of the US political system, which most other Western countries lack. One is that local governments are much more numerous and powerful in the US, while in most other Western countries they are fewer and less powerful, with many issues dealt locally in the US instead being centralised in state/provincial or even national agencies. Another is that having a presidential rather than parliamentary system (at both the state and federal level) tends to make the executive weaker, and the legislature and executive tend to have a more disjointed/competitive rather than cooperative relationship. Yet another is a very hard two party system combined with very weak party discipline within both parties, which the existence of primaries arguably contributes to. Is it plausible that some of these distinctives could make the US a much more difficult political environment in which to successfully pull off major infrastructure projects?
WTC had a great deal of will to build something, but also a lot of political meddling because it would be so iconic. You can read up on many of the details but by the initial plan was heavily altered by many stakeholders for to add office space, security concerns, etc.
For more classic example consider say the $252 million 2.8 mile Marc Basnight Bridge which started construction July 27, 2017 scheduled to be completed on February 2019 and actually opened on February 25, 2019. While huge it was politically uninteresting compared to WTC and much cheaper, so while it ended up on time and budget nobody paid much attention.
That bridge is much closer to the typical major project in the US than the kind of things people remember because they made the news and ran wildly over budget.
The design should have added time (since is was a new thing and thus who knows how long before they can design something that works - this may require building labs to simulate things in). Everything else should just be a month extra. There is more to do not, but you can put the AC in on lower floors while placing beams for upper floors. Plus we have a lot of automation that has been made before this, so a lot of labor should go faster. A taller building will of course take longer to build than a short one, but it should be years difference.
Where are you getting that should from? The base took a long time and was literally built like a bunker, but the actual floors went up at roughly 1 floor a week. However, there was a significant gap between all the glass on exterior being up and the building being ready for occupancy.
Part of this is tall buildings simply run into issues with workforce sizes. The same happens for developers building thousands of single family homes run into similar issues. They can build individual homes vastly faster than they can finish a large subdivision.
How are you getting those numbers? The original line M1 is 13.9 km. The total length of all lines adds up to 20.4 km counting the shared 7.7km section used by M1, and M2 once.
“The metro consists of four lines, M1, M2, M3 and M4. M1 and M2 share a common 7.69-kilometre (4.78 mi) section from Vanløse to Christianshavn,[3] where they split along two lines: M1 follows the Ørestad Line to Vestamager, while M2 follows the Østamager Line to the airport. The metro consists of a total route length of 20.4 km (12.7 mi),[3] and 22 stations, 9 of which are on the section shared by both lines.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Metro
Also, the DC metro area is much larger than the area served by the metro system which is why the keep expanding it. In terms of actual daily riders the systems are surprisingly close, though DC gets swamped occasionally for things like Obama’s inauguration etc.
I read the first line of the second paragraph ("The original 20.4-kilometre (12.7 mi) system opened in October 2002") and the "System length: 38.2km (23.7mi)" bit from the infobox.
The paragraph you quoted mixes up the situation from before M3/M4 opened with the situation after. I also see where you have taken 13.9km for M1, but on M1's own article page it says 14.3km. Danish Wikipedia gives different figures again.
M1's total length is around 14km, M3 is 15.5km. Christianshavn to the airport is 7km by road, Østerport to Orientkaj about 3km, so the total is roughly 40km.
57 million annual riders on the Washington Metro doesn't seem so much for such a large city. There must be a good chance of getting a seat :-)
Copenhagen's metro claims 107 million annual riders, but the older and more extensive S-train also has 116 million annual riders. Supposedly the total comes to 183 million riders of either/both annually.
Italy had a corruption problem a few decades ago. They have done some major reform and things are better, but the reputation remains.
Note that Italy is not perfect. And like all cases of corruption it is worse in some areas than others. The construction costs project is about mass transit where Italy does fairly well, but they don't look at highways so we cannot say anything about how they do highways from the data here. (I'm sure someone reading this knows more than I do about Itally's highways and can comment)
Spain is the outlier for fast/cheap/good, but I hear that even Italy has gotten its act together, and the recent Rome subway was done quickly and cheaply. The Nordic countries also have a good reputation. England is pretty bad/comparable to the US in speed and cost.
Yeah, but Americans built a bridge that fell on people. American rails can't keep their trains on them (a crucial functionality of trains and Rails) and American pipes have poisoned thousands.
Fast, cheap, good. Pick none. The American construction mantra.
So far it's worked because of the reserve currency and technological progress. But the time of the American monopolar world is coming to an end. In twenty years, the bill will come due and instead of acting to liberate themselves, Americans will fall over themselves to justify their status quo - unable to reconcile the existential shame they feel at the thought that they inherited power the likes of which the world had never seen before and transformed it to impotence.
"The billionaires", "we do it to be safer", "the X are ruining it". All the while they drift into irrelevance, raging hopelessly at shadows while their own choices drive them to destruction
Spain is the second most mointanous country in the European Union after Austria. And not a desert. It also seems to be particularly efficient at building infrastructure.
Probably helps that wages are lower in Spain. Americans want cheap infrastructure but also want high wages and that's probably an impossible combination.
Sure, but wages + census makes a difference. The NY Times did a comparison of the construction of the 2nd avenue subway project after the governor took the 5th or 6th victory lap.
As I recall, the TBM used in NYC was “mannned” by 5x more workers than an identical machine in Paris. We’re talking like 50 people. France isn’t known for labor efficiency, but between the various labor agreements, minority/women owned employee and subcontractor requirements, etc that many extra hands were being paid. Whether they did anything is another story.
France does a vastly better job than America at things like HSR and one could hardly call the highly unionised and regulated labour environment 'cheap' over there.
I'll bite. He is probably talking about Hongkong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, China. They all build infra much faster than the US. If we move south, then Malaysia and Singapore also build very fast. For Europe, France builds much faster than the US, but it is more centralised.
Part of it is the fact that they do it so much so they’re very good at it. China has laid more concrete since 2000 than the rest of the world combined prior to 2000. So the Chinese have a lot of expertise and a lot of the supply chain, and for example in Singapore the Chinese have built a lot.
By the way, much of the same can be said about manufacturing.
In the US a lack of construction has caused the industry to atrophy.
It's a bit like the baby boom. The US built a lot in the 50s and 60s. Especially road construction, most of the road infrastructure was built over a short period around the 50s-60s.
There was a long period where very little maintenance or construction was required.
Now we are seeing the structures all start to deteriorate at the same time.
Singapore has relatively efficient bureaucracy and few private landowners with few rights to challenge projects, but it also has low wage migrant workers from India working all night on them.
Tokyo standards for residential are legendarily low. People demolish and rebuild when they buy a home because nothing is built to last even a moderate amount of time.
I have heard that. I didn't spend much time in homes. I was in offices and factories, and they were robust as hell. My company's original factory was built after WWI, and may have just been knocked down, a few years ago (it may still be standing -they sold it).
The Moscow metro is not just for vanity - the nomenklatura don't take the metro, the people in squalor do...
Besides it is irrelevant for the topic - say you are right, then you are still admitting that even a corrupt country that constructs public transport only for vanity can do it at 10x the speed and 0.1x the costs as we can...
> The Moscow metro is not just for vanity - the nomenklatura don't take the metro, the people in squalor do...
That's like saying the vanity construction projects of Roman emperors weren't for vanity because they were used more by the plebs than by the nomenklatura.
Which group uses it most has absolutely nothing to do with what makes a vanity project. Quite to the contrary, the criterion for a vanity project is that a core motivation for its construction was to embellish the image/popularity/glory of the powerful person who ordered the construction. So yes, it is quite common for vanity projects to be precisely those used more by the plebs than the nomenklatura.
Doesn't that reinforce the parents' point that even a country with 1/10th the GDP and 10x more corruption, still manages to complete their subway projects 10x quicker at 1/10th the cost?
I don't think the explanation is that Russians are 10000x smarter than Americans, so it must be some environmental/organizational difference.
> Doesn't that reinforce the parents' point that (…)
I don't see how it would. The reasons why a country with 1/10th the GDP and 10x more corruption still manages to complete their subway projects 10x quicker at 1/10th the cost is totally orthogonal to whether it's a vanity project or not, or with which group will use it most.
> it must be some environmental/organizational difference.
indeed, it very much is. And for that matter: a construction project ordered by an autocratic dictator in a corrupt second-world country has inherently a much higher probability of being finished in time and within budget than a nominally comparable project in a democratic first world country. It may later turn out to be of totally shitty quality or cause lots of other problems (e.g. safety, environmental, etc) because quality and other standards were sacrificed to the priority of meeting the will of the dictator/party, but when a totalitarian ruler gives an order, people feel they better comply quickly.
A totalitarian state that doesn't give a shit about your rights, the environment etc, can more easily just evacuate or disown everyone who lived in the planned line or area, whereas in a first-world democratic country the construction will be hindered by lawsuits (both for their legitimate right and for nimbyism, particular interests etc). Same for the environment: In Germany, these days, there's almost no large-scale construction project that isn't severely slowed down by activists because (true or false) the project is suspected to harm the habitat of some rare protected species. It drags through the courts, Experts have to evaluate the situation, solutions may have to be found (sometimes very costly), etc.
In a totalitarian country, all of that doesn't exist. The environment is just totally meaningless compared to the will of the dictator or party. Finally, it's not just the rights, legal, environmental and social standards that are much more complicated (and in consequence, costly and slowing things down) in developed democratic countries, but pretty much all standards, including for everything related to the building project. So yeah, a totalitarian state is total shite, but its leadership has waaay fewer obstacles to getting their construction project done in time and within budget.
> I don't see how it would. The reasons why a country with 1/10th the GDP and 10x more corruption still manages to complete their subway projects 10x quicker at 1/10th the cost is totally orthogonal to whether it's a vanity project or not, or with which group will use it most.
Because it removes the explanation of the motivation that it will primarily benefit their personal usage. Since the decision-makers for the project obviously have to share the subway with millions of ordinary commuters.
Even if it was a vanity project, the vanity only accrues to the top leadership, not to the thousands of middle-managers. So it's extra significant that even with a 10x more corrupt structure, where the vast majority of said structure don't benefit from the vanity, it's still completed quicker.
> Because it removes the explanation of the motivation that it will primarily benefit their personal usage.
Does it? I'd say that they have far more benefit of the project than the common commuter… it's just a different use. Their use is not merely commuting (they live in a palace and have a limousine and chauffeur and personal jet) but a tool for asserting and furthering their power and image… So yes, they very much have a personal interest in it. Also, vanity projects in corrupt and autocratic countries are often a way for the dictators and their nephews and goons to fill their pockets from state money. That too is way more benefit than the common commuter.
> the vanity only accrues to the top leadership, not to the thousands of middle-managers
The fact that such a vanity project isn't born from the vanity of middle managers doesn't change the fact that they too have a big personal interest in such projects. Playing your part well in a vanity project is what gets you promoted in autocratic and other totalitarian regimes.
> So it's extra significant that even with a 10x more corrupt structure, where the vast majority of said structure don't benefit from the vanity, it's still completed quicker.
The higher speed of authoritarian regimes when it comes to the decision making processes is nothing surprising but inherent to its nature: no checks and balances, no lawsuits or high standards to slow things down, just a simple top-down order structure. It's not good for the rights and freedoms of people, but it is inherently faster than a democratic system which requires to reach a wide consensus and to comply with a whole lot of complicated requirements.
Vanity? Have you visited Russia within the past 10 years? If you didn't know, Moscow traffic is horrendous. And many Muscovites do in fact, depend on the metro to get to work, school, etc.
Obviously (or I guess not so obvious since I am writing this) that is because of a different density of workers, architects, general contractors, engineers for vastly different biomes in the United States than in Europe. Europe has way more people (more than twice as dense) in a similar geographic area (far less diverse features) so the data and practices honed by one are more efficient and have greater economy of scale despite all of the red tape we share. Nothing really that interesting.
Or you can just go with the simple stupid answer of corruption as if Europe isn't its own cesspool.
I don’t think this is obvious or even necessarily true. Europe has many things going against it as well, language barriers, split markets, generally being quite a bit poorer than the US. Moreover it doesn’t explain the performance of East Asian countries at all.
It would greatly explain the performance of East Asian countries. They share the same environmental challenges whereas in the US the challenges are vastly different depending on which coast you are near. Of course China had less red tape (no pun intended) in some regards for development than the other East Asian countries so it executes even faster than its peers. I think its more of a slam dunk than comparing Europe with the US in these terms, which is commensurate with their ability to churn out infrastructure.
> It would greatly explain the performance of East Asian countries. They share the same environmental challenges whereas in the US the challenges are vastly different depending on which coast you are near.
Huh? East Asian countries differ greatly from each other.
And the bigger countries, like China, differ vastly by region. Just like the US.
I don’t know that biome relevance is particularly relevant given that major US cities are not usually where major weather extremes happen. We are not talking about skyscrapers in Death Valley or Nome.
What do we actually need to build? We have plenty of buildings to shelter people, but use them roleplay career professionals. More than enough roads and highways.
Plenty of farmland. Maybe could use some hospitals.
A real need to rebuild post-world wars seems to have become some mind virus we have to constantly crank out mega projects.
Can we get over the ridiculous hallucination we need to “drill baby drill” and grind through all the resources to goto Mars? You and I will be dead before that’s tenable let alone implemented… can we let the future sort itself out a bit?
Why do we still buy into the story of post-war shell shocked paranoids who spent decades huffing leased gas fumes, expropriating the world from everyone else dropping democracy bombs.
Decades of television as a carefully curated propaganda pipeline has messed the last generation up.
Population is expanding in many US cities faster than they are building houses. With houses we need to build schools, stores, parks, offices, and a long list of other things that an expanding population will use more of.
Old infrastructure wears out, and often it fails to meet modern standards and should be replaced (ex old houses often cannot be insulated to modern standards, old bridges we now realize were not built strong enough). Many have for various reasons concluded that some of what we have built in the past was a mistake and so we should tear some things down to replace with something else. (ex replace highways with mass transit)
While we don't need to build or rebuild everything we did in the past, there is still a lot of things that if we would build our life would be better.
Facebook most certainly changed the world. The result was not good from my perspective. You can justify phrases like "social good" in a lot of different ways. Which is why you should always be skeptical of such claims.
Sounds like a smart decision. A lot of people care about this and would like input. So much so that they will work for free. I fail to see why this is an issue from Musk's perspective or from mine as a Twitter user.
Ezra Klein lost his credibility long ago. Sad. Vox is a rag.
Anyone here remember Wonkblog? I often miss the heady days of the early 2010's.
Funny how we thought we were living in tragic times back then after the 2008 financial crisis. And sure, we were. But there was so much more in store for us, wasn't there?
Nice anecdote. Have you heard the one about the tech CTO that got stabbed to death? We have data about this too and it's very much trending in the wrong direction.
If you're tired of arguing with people who are begging you to care about their lives, you can always just remain silent.