← Back to context

Comment by paggle

6 years ago

No, it's specifically meant to illustrate that the inflation in infrastructure costs has been wildly faster than the inflation in the rest of the economy. The US can't build infrastructure for any kind of reasonable cost anymore and it is a big fucking problem.

9 comments

paggle

Reply
jacobush  6 years ago

It IS a big problem, but shifting stuff around in a dense city is different from piling some dirt into a shape on the tundra.

  • Turing_Machine  6 years ago

    Most of the route is through extremely rugged mountainous terrain, not tundra, and developing a roadbed that can survive -70 F winters is a lot more involved than "piling dirt into a shape"

    I traveled it before was paved, and it was, and is, a true engineering marvel.

    • jacobush  6 years ago

      Yes, I both unravelled my vast illiteracy on road engineering in general and understated a bit on purpose. My point was that there is not much existing infrastructure to take into account up there. Your point taken though.

  • clarry  6 years ago

    And yet the infrastructure cost of rural areas is regularly cited as a problem, and moving people into big dense cities is proposed as the solution.

    • jonfw  6 years ago

      One meter of road in the middle of san francisco would be used more than a meter of road in rural areas.

      While the costs are higher- so are the benefits

      1 reply →

read_if_gay_  6 years ago

I think you could argue that infrastructure quality has grown at a pace that justifies the increased expense.

  • OnlineGladiator  6 years ago

    Do you have examples? I feel like things have gotten 10x more expensive and they're built with half the quality. In San Francisco we have a leaning skyscraper, the Bay Bridge which some people are still unsure is safe despite being several years late and costing 5x as much as predicted, and the Transit Center which was however many months/years late and is continuously shut down for safety reasons.

    I realize San Francisco is a microcosm, but in my experience the focus has been on extracting money via corruption and building the bare minimum you can without getting sued.

    You could argue the money is going towards greater safety for workers, but I see no plausible argument that it's resulting in higher quality work.