Comment by pithymaxim
6 years ago
Based on that last entry about the SF bus line, I would really love to see https://patrickcollison.com/slow
6 years ago
Based on that last entry about the SF bus line, I would really love to see https://patrickcollison.com/slow
He's rightfully dunking on the Van Ness bus line for some reasons, but it's basically a major utilities infrastructure project disguised as a bus lane. They're overhead power and reconfiguring the street, but they're also replacing ~4 miles of 1800s water main, putting in a new earthquake-resistant sewer system, and redoing the fire hydrant water feeds.
I feel like it's more of a branding failure honestly. People would be much more understanding - if you heard "we're replacing 1800s utilities with 21st century tech built for the earthquake zone in SF and you get better transit along with that", I think the conversation would be much different than "it's taken a decade to build a new lane".
That reminds me a bit of the California High Speed rail project. A bunch of the work in the central valley is grade separation for existing freight rail lines.
But then we'd wonder why the transit needs to be conditioned on the utilities. This is political malpractice undermining support for bus lanes citywide.
News article says [T]he $189 million project, which is part of a larger complimentary (sic) sewer and street light replacement project totalled at $316 million.[0]
[0] https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/two-mile-long-van-ness-bus-l...
Related: The Duke Nukem Forever list.
Written in the aftermath of Duke Nukem Forever finally being canned, twelve years after being announced. (It did finally ship, to a poor reception)
http://duke.a-13.net/
The new Berlin airport is a classic example, and one that really undermines the stereotype of German efficiency and competence when it comes to infrastructure projects.
Across BER airport, the Elbphilharmonie and Stuttgart 21, the stereotype of German efficiency is dead in the water at least as far as infrastructure projects are concerned.
Construction on the Basílica de la Sagrada Família began in 1882 and was less than a quarter complete when its architect passed away in 1926. [1]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagrada_Família
It remains a work in progress today.
That goes for all cathedrals though. Just two random examples, Notre Dame took about 100 years for the main structure, Cologne Cathedral took 600 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_de_Paris
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne_Cathedral
And is usually a matter of funding, famously Hagia Sophia was built in five years
Crazy Horse Memorial has been dragging out too. Got the impression that what exists now is functional enough to serve as a tourist trap so there's less incentive to complete it.
Hum, I think things should be broadened beyond just a fast/slow axis, and inquire what some of these projects actually serve. Or at the least what they've costed in the long-run in terms of resource use.
Personally I've been meaning to really do an exercise in evaluating projects against a regenerative framework (see https://capitalinstitute.org/8-principles-regenerative-econo... & http://fieldguide.capitalinstitute.org/whats-regenerative.ht... ). I'm not saying this framework is perfect nor am I endorsing Capital Inst, but there needs to be better evaluation than just speed.
Definitely! That would be very cool to see. I bet there are a lot of great things that have moved slowly with great success. Berkshire Hathaway is probably a good example, although I don't know how it compares to other companies during a similar window of time.