And it seems a little difficult to blame Obama for the slow progress of a project that began about the same time he was filing papers for his candidacy as an Illinois senator.
Yes, the project was already under way. There was $768B allocated for shovel ready projects and this was 'only' $3B. If was merely a matter of money, it seems like this lock should be done now. Or, given the $768B, replaced with a different design and the failed one cast aside.
"The corps, an agency within the federal government, decided to build Olmsted with an experimental “in the wet” construction method: Hollow sections of the dam are built on the bank, skidded down to the river, towed into position and lowered into the water, where they are filled with concrete. Traditionally, a project like this would have used a coffer dam — a small temporary dam that keeps water out of the site while construction goes on in the dry.
The “in the wet” method was supposed to save time and money and minimize delays, but it did the opposite. By the time the corps realized its folly, it was too late to alter course. The novel construction process and inadequate congressional funding, among other things, have dragged the project past the quarter-century mark."
People living in the East Bay (SF Bay area) might be interested to know that the 4th bore of the Caldecott Tunnel (completed 2013) was the largest recipient of Federal stimulus funds for infrastructure in the US ([1] via [2]).
My own recollection is that the project was nearing the final planning stages in 2008, but the recession wiped out much of the state and local funding that had been earmarked for the project. The project was about to be cancelled, but Federal stimulus funding came to the rescue.
(Edit: in an earlier version, I claimed that the project was "shovel-ready" in 2008, but since construction didn't start until 2010, I was obviously not correct).
Is my interpretation correct that the main problem in US public infrastructure is that politicians can just move around the funding of already running projects? Or is it bad incentives when doing estimates such that it can't be planned properly?
I'm asking because in Switzerland we have just completed two huge infrastructure projects, one for 10B and one for 2B, with hardly any budget problems. Cost of 1km of rail tunnel is at a reasonable 140M (for two ways, one bore each). So we know it's possible, I'm just wondering what's the difference.
I don't think you can compare projects at this level of detail. My understanding of the Swiss tunnels (congratulations!) is that they were through hard rock which provides predictable support for the tunnel. Tunnels in softer or less consistent materials have much less predictable costs, as do projects involving water.
Tunneling through the alps isn't exactly easy, it's actually harder than through a normal sediment. Well, maybe cost wise a weak sediment may be more expensive (but not by a factor of 20x, more like 1.5-2x), but vertical rock formations bring all kinds of surprises, which leads to accidents including deaths, which leads to insurance premiums.
To illustrate, here's a normal sediment:
-----------------
20y
-----------------
100y
----------------
....
here are the alps:
| 10M years | 10.1M years | 12M years | ....
Edit: You can also compare to the other link I posted in a sister comment, about a new tunnel through one of Zurich's hills. That project was actually less expensive per km than the Gotthard base tunnel, so I don't think the rock is the problem.
Yep. It's not exactly easy task either. I'm talking about [1], the new largest train tunnel at the base of the alps, a very difficult terrain to tunnel through, and [2], a new train line, including a new underground train station, right through the fully developed center of Zurich. In a country with among the highest salaries in the world. I'm just still trying to wrap my head around what the hell the US is doing with infrastructure projects. Too many cooks? Constantly changing administration? Corrupt building industry and regulatory bodies? It doesn't seem just a federal problem either, at least in the big US cities there's news left and right about billions wasted in what I'd call small to moderate extensions of public transit infrastructure.
I used to work for a native American nation. One of the anecdotes from the guy you could consider to be the CEO was that although he could get a grant for $50k from the federal government for road improvements, it cost him about $35k to jump through all the hoops (filing for the grant, documenting that the appropriate oversight was exercised, etc.). It was still a net win, but he would then add that even $50k wasn't really spit when it came to what he was spending overall.
>> Too many cooks? Constantly changing administration? Corrupt building industry and regulatory bodies?
I'd say not too many cooks, but too many head chefs. From my contact with federal projects there always seems to be too many bosses. Dozens of people/groups think they are the final word on the project. None work with each other. Instead of all sitting in a room to hash things out, project plans are emailed/mailed around. Each then sits on the project for weeks, or months if they feel they need public participation/input. By the time each stakeholder agency does their thing a year has past. Any change then restarts the email chain. European governments seem better at agreeing general concepts and then appointing educated individuals to act as reps. Meetings then move far more quickly.
I'm guessing these administrations are the result of laws and/or regulations, right?
And the US probably has way more regulation, simply because there is a bigger pot to pay politicians and lobbyists from, and they all need something to do/to promise their voters?
Here's an idea: What if every new piece of law and regulation came with a mandatory expiration date - say 10 years. After that date it must pass the legislator again, at which point a new date is set based on an exponential backoff algorithm. At each new vote I'd expect there to be some evaluation of the effects of that piece of legislation.
Now obviously, you still have the problem of strictly partisan politicians, but if you could even just have 5% of legislators not being corrupted by that it would be enough to swing the majority to one side or the other, based on facts.
It's not the amount of regulation on the books. Europe has more. It's a cultural thing. Americans don't trust their governments in the same way Europeans do. Even the most liberal-minded democrats still want government to be constantly checked. That makes those laws that are there very difficult to work with. Everyone sees is as his or her duty to watch what the government is doing. I don't mean just citizens. The American system of divided government often sees state lawmakers at odds with their federal government, doubly so when the project cross state lines. Everyone on the project tiptoes around slowly thinking any misstep will result in legal troubles. Europeans are far more trusting of democracy, taking such matters to the ballot box rather than the lawyer's office.
An example: There is a regulation stating that federal projects must notify and consult affected native tribes. Fine. That's sounds reasonable. But in practice "affected tribes" has become all tribes. Rather than risk getting it wrong, some feel they must officially inform and consult every tribe in the nation. There is a few weeks delay.
Here is the handbook for that reg. Note that this is not the regulation but a guideline on how to obey it. The reg itself is very simple (It's actually a body of several regs, but they all do basically the same thing). What makes it complicated is all the stuff over and above the wording, the stuff you do more out of fear than legal requirement. That stuff gets published in a *.gov PDF and the next thing you know everyone thinks they have to obey every letter of the PDF. The PDF is now a defacto reg and the cycle begins again.
Maybe it's just a different local optimum. When the Swiss Republic was instated in 1848, the founders drew upon the old tradition of direct democracy, now on a national level. Swiss people are typically very weary of big organisations, which is why we aren't in the EU for one - the federal Republic had to overcome this problem by basically installing checks-and-balances on crack (no one person having executive power alone, two chambers, everything can be overruled by people's votes on every level of the administration). So it basically started with a profound mistrust, but I think through these instruments people over the generations have come to trust the system quite a lot - at least so much that the government has been allowed to do quite a few relatively progressive projects even when challenged by the people's vote.
> What if every new piece of law and regulation came with a mandatory expiration date - say 10 years. After that date it must pass the legislator again
The Patriot Act extensions show that the "re-evaluation" step will get skipped. Instead everything gets boiled down to talking points that can be used to attack your political opponents in the next election (so-and-so hates cute puppies! he didn't renew the save-the-cute-puppies act!)
Yes, that's what I meant with the past paragraph. But I'd also say the patriot act is (or hopefully should be) a rather special case as it's such an emotionally loaded piece of legislation, closely attached to 9-11.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/obama-lesson-s...