Infrastructure

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 14934
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Infrastructure

Post by Kolohe »

Hugh Akston wrote: 29 Jan 2020, 17:33 Trust in government was high during the Eisenhower epoch, when a lot of big infrastructure projects were going down. But it cratered during Vietnam and never really recovered. I don't think I can name a big public works project that happened in the 70s or 80s, except for the moon landing.
Built from scratch subways in DC, SF, and a few other places.
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15838
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Infrastructure

Post by Eric the .5b »

Mo wrote: 29 Jan 2020, 19:06 France has about the same population density as Florida.\
Eric the .5b wrote: 29 Jan 2020, 18:47 Unless the central government decides not to care about things like environmental impact when it comes to state and local constructions (and it won't decide that), it's going to be involved.
Do you need multiple levels of environmental impact? Part of the issue is that you have municipal, state and federal environmental impact, which takes a lot of time and money and way more veto points. Seems like it would be better to have one governing set of rules.
I really don't know the state and local components of environmental impact or how involved they are. I just know the feds will pretty much be involved if there's any hint of environment impact.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 26894
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Infrastructure

Post by Jennifer »

Hypothetically -- this isn't a project which could be done right now, but maybe a few decades down the road assuming computer and other tech developments continue advancing as they have -- if the goal is to get some US-wide mass transit system connecting the lower 48 states, while trying as much as possible to reduce the problem of having to first acquire all that land, much of which is currently occupied by people and immobile property already, couldn't some of the federal interstate highway land be repurposed for this? Although even if the technology were there now, there would still be a chicken and egg problem of "you can't repurpose the interstate while it's still in use by personal cars and transport" and "car and truck drivers won't consider giving up their vehicles if there's no other alternative."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b
User avatar
Highway
Posts: 14162
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: Infrastructure

Post by Highway »

Hugh Akston wrote: 29 Jan 2020, 19:54
Highway wrote: 29 Jan 2020, 19:24 On the subject of "US projects cost more than projects other places", I would be interested to see a breakdown in how much higher the costs are for components. Because the cost of every part of every project I work on is tracked, at least in a relatively fine manner. What are the items that cost more? Is it materials? Installation? Labor rates? Design? Environmental clearances? Land acquisition? Is it things like reinventing the wheel (or the subway) every single time, because no city will use the same cars as another city? Is it that US projects like to include some special segment that is spectacularly expensive, compared to the rest?
The article I linked to above links to studies, which include the data.
But that's not the analysis I'm interested in (when those links even work). They all look at a single factor, not a top to bottom comparison of unit costs for each aspect of the projects, from idea to maintaining. Plus, those factors that are listed in the article aren't anywhere near coming up to 'multiples' of project costs, if they're comparing to some ideal. Adding 22% and 25% and 15% and "some amount that we know has gotta be something, but is only 2 % of budget" isn't going to get us anywhere near Mo's assertion of 3x-20x, especially if those are the major things.
Well, that was a long walk down a windy beach to a cafe that was closed...
User avatar
Highway
Posts: 14162
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: Infrastructure

Post by Highway »

Eric the .5b wrote: 29 Jan 2020, 20:12
Mo wrote: 29 Jan 2020, 19:06 France has about the same population density as Florida.\
Eric the .5b wrote: 29 Jan 2020, 18:47 Unless the central government decides not to care about things like environmental impact when it comes to state and local constructions (and it won't decide that), it's going to be involved.
Do you need multiple levels of environmental impact? Part of the issue is that you have municipal, state and federal environmental impact, which takes a lot of time and money and way more veto points. Seems like it would be better to have one governing set of rules.
I really don't know the state and local components of environmental impact or how involved they are. I just know the feds will pretty much be involved if there's any hint of environment impact.
There are different things that different levels are interested in, and with the system we have, some states are much more cognizant of impacts with more stringent rules, and some states are more than happy to help people Three S endangered species ("shoot, shovel, and shut up"). Some states work closely with the feds, while others aren't as interested.

So, if you're trying to flatten the layers of approval, the question is that if you have a wetland, or something that might be a wetland, do you want the feds ALWAYS involved, or do you want the chance that nobody will be involved. Because a state like Maryland could decide they want to still protect Critical Areas at waterways, or increased scrutiny on wetlands and waterways because of the Chesapeake Bay, but then a state like Pennsylvania might say 'naaaah, we're not going to bother with regulations on wetlands and waterways which filter sediment and pollutants in to the Susquehanna River."
Well, that was a long walk down a windy beach to a cafe that was closed...
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15838
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Infrastructure

Post by Eric the .5b »

Highway wrote: 30 Jan 2020, 00:07So, if you're trying to flatten the layers of approval, the question is that if you have a wetland, or something that might be a wetland, do you want the feds ALWAYS involved, or do you want the chance that nobody will be involved.
That's a very fine question, especially in the context of the EU providing a framework and the member nations doing what supposedly adheres to it.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 4662
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Infrastructure

Post by Painboy »

I have a feeling I'm going to be hearing about this concept far more than I'd ever want over the next several years.
The 20-minute neighbourhood is all about ‘living locally’ – giving people the ability to meet most of their everyday needs within a 20-minute walk, cycle or local public transport trip of their home.
User avatar
JD
Posts: 12776
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Infrastructure

Post by JD »

Painboy wrote: 01 Mar 2020, 12:52 I have a feeling I'm going to be hearing about this concept far more than I'd ever want over the next several years.
The 20-minute neighbourhood is all about ‘living locally’ – giving people the ability to meet most of their everyday needs within a 20-minute walk, cycle or local public transport trip of their home.
Isn't that basically just called "a city"? (OK, "with a good public transit system", which does narrow it down a lot.)
I sort of feel like a sucker about aspiring to be intellectually rigorous when I could just go on twitter and say capitalism causes space herpes and no one will challenge me on it. - Hugh Akston
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 21269
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Infrastructure

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

JD wrote: 02 Mar 2020, 10:16
Painboy wrote: 01 Mar 2020, 12:52 I have a feeling I'm going to be hearing about this concept far more than I'd ever want over the next several years.
The 20-minute neighbourhood is all about ‘living locally’ – giving people the ability to meet most of their everyday needs within a 20-minute walk, cycle or local public transport trip of their home.
Isn't that basically just called "a city"? (OK, "with a good public transit system", which does narrow it down a lot.)
I don't think so. It still remains true even of cities that have something approaching "a good public transit system" that grocery stores and, for that matter, most brick and mortar retailing have fled to the burbs. Also, schools. Plus, what I suspect they're aspiring to is an urban neighborhood in which you don't even have to take a bus or subway to get to any of that stuff except maybe the hospital or something like that. Everybody walks or maybe rides a bike, everybody knows everyone else in the neighborhood, etc., etc. IOW, a complete fantasy of what they think urban neighborhoods were like in, say, the 40s or 50s except with lots of trendy restaurants.
User avatar
nicole
Posts: 11125
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Infrastructure

Post by nicole »

It’s exactly what my urban neighborhood is like, hospital included.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex
User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 20400
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: Elev. 5280 ft

Re: Infrastructure

Post by Hugh Akston »

I certainly wouldn't mind living in a neighborhood like that
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Well if they're blaming libertarians again then things must be going back to normal." ~dbcooper
User avatar
nicole
Posts: 11125
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Infrastructure

Post by nicole »

Reminds me of a thread I was reading a couple weeks ago. Not all of the comments are into it!
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex
User avatar
JD
Posts: 12776
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Infrastructure

Post by JD »

D.A. Ridgely wrote: 02 Mar 2020, 10:33
JD wrote: 02 Mar 2020, 10:16 Isn't that basically just called "a city"? (OK, "with a good public transit system", which does narrow it down a lot.)
I don't think so. It still remains true even of cities that have something approaching "a good public transit system" that grocery stores and, for that matter, most brick and mortar retailing have fled to the burbs. Also, schools.
You're claiming that even in cities with good public transit systems, most of the grocery stores have fled to the suburbs? That seems like a bit of a claim in need of some proof. Of course I guess we do have to define what we mean by "good public transit" and even by "city".
Plus, what I suspect they're aspiring to is an urban neighborhood in which you don't even have to take a bus or subway to get to any of that stuff except maybe the hospital or something like that. Everybody walks or maybe rides a bike, everybody knows everyone else in the neighborhood, etc., etc. IOW, a complete fantasy of what they think urban neighborhoods were like in, say, the 40s or 50s except with lots of trendy restaurants.
That I agree with. Reading the original source, their "everything accessible in 20 minutes BUT NOT BY CAR!" thing seems like a bit of an arbitrary imposition. I mean, if we allow cars, then a ton of places have pretty much everything you'd want for daily living within 20 minutes, because you just jump on the highway. The whole thing reeks of an idee fixe about what constitutes a "good neighborhood" and seems to ignore that not everybody wants the same thing. A few of the comments even point out that these neighborhoods already exist, and yet people's revealed preferences seem to show that not everybody wants to live there.
I sort of feel like a sucker about aspiring to be intellectually rigorous when I could just go on twitter and say capitalism causes space herpes and no one will challenge me on it. - Hugh Akston
User avatar
Highway
Posts: 14162
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: Infrastructure

Post by Highway »

It's basically an anti-car, anti-sprawl idea. And even then it rather fails at capturing what they want, since places like my completely suburban neighborhood has "most of my everyday needs", except my job, within a 20 minute walk. Because honestly, all you need for everyday is a grocery store and a couple of restaurants. My job would be within a 20 minute bike ride. But even living in that kind of area, I'm still mostly going places by car.
Well, that was a long walk down a windy beach to a cafe that was closed...
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 21269
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Infrastructure

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

I'll gladly retract my probably exaggerated claim about grocery stores, but supermarkets are few and far between in D.C. and if they've started to spring up in Manhattan it's news to me. I don't think anything is merely 20 minutes away in L.A., Texas's major cities sprawl and effectively include what would be considered suburbs elsewhere. I can't speak to Chicago, having only been there once. Anyway, while it may be true that retail malls are dying, it doesn't mean shopping has returned to the central cities, it just means people are buying online. Anyway, yeah, it's just anecdata but what I've usually seen in genuinely urban areas have been bodegas and crappy little grocery stores with about a third of the shelf space of even the run-of-the-mill supermarket chains in the burbs. If that's changed, I stand corrected.
User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 4662
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Infrastructure

Post by Painboy »

JD wrote: 02 Mar 2020, 11:57
D.A. Ridgely wrote: 02 Mar 2020, 10:33
JD wrote: 02 Mar 2020, 10:16 Isn't that basically just called "a city"? (OK, "with a good public transit system", which does narrow it down a lot.)
I don't think so. It still remains true even of cities that have something approaching "a good public transit system" that grocery stores and, for that matter, most brick and mortar retailing have fled to the burbs. Also, schools.
You're claiming that even in cities with good public transit systems, most of the grocery stores have fled to the suburbs? That seems like a bit of a claim in need of some proof. Of course I guess we do have to define what we mean by "good public transit" and even by "city".
Plus, what I suspect they're aspiring to is an urban neighborhood in which you don't even have to take a bus or subway to get to any of that stuff except maybe the hospital or something like that. Everybody walks or maybe rides a bike, everybody knows everyone else in the neighborhood, etc., etc. IOW, a complete fantasy of what they think urban neighborhoods were like in, say, the 40s or 50s except with lots of trendy restaurants.
That I agree with. Reading the original source, their "everything accessible in 20 minutes BUT NOT BY CAR!" thing seems like a bit of an arbitrary imposition. I mean, if we allow cars, then a ton of places have pretty much everything you'd want for daily living within 20 minutes, because you just jump on the highway. The whole thing reeks of an idee fixe about what constitutes a "good neighborhood" and seems to ignore that not everybody wants the same thing. A few of the comments even point out that these neighborhoods already exist, and yet people's revealed preferences seem to show that not everybody wants to live there.
My main concern with this type of thinking is that it presents an interesting observation, or a kind of a rule of thumb, that will inevitably turn into an entire urban planning philosophy like it has some strong scientific basis. The "20 minute neighborhood" is little better than a marketing term and yet some people out there will likely base their entire plan on it.
User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 14934
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Infrastructure

Post by Kolohe »

I'm...ok with that?
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex
User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 20400
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: Elev. 5280 ft

Re: Infrastructure

Post by Hugh Akston »

Yeah I mean I'm not intimately familiar with the various approaches to urban planning, but I'm willing to bet breakfast that most of them don't have a strong scientific underpinning. It's also not clear how one would go about sciencing that sort of thing, or that a science-based approach would be better than educated guessing.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Well if they're blaming libertarians again then things must be going back to normal." ~dbcooper
User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 17948
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Infrastructure

Post by Aresen »

Highway wrote: 02 Mar 2020, 12:20 It's basically an anti-car, anti-sprawl idea. And even then it rather fails at capturing what they want, since places like my completely suburban neighborhood has "most of my everyday needs", except my job, within a 20 minute walk.
Team Highway. It is a romantic view of 1930s cities before everyone had a car and cities had definite boundaries with 'pristine countryside' (another fantasy) beyond those boundaries. And even many of the urbanists still dream of living in a bucolic paradise without 'pesky neighbours.'
Highway wrote:Because honestly, all you need for everyday is a grocery store and a couple of restaurants. My job would be within a 20 minute bike ride. But even living in that kind of area, I'm still mostly going places by car.
This is basically my situation. I like to walk to the grocery store (there are four supermarkets within 20 minutes walk), but if it's rainy, too cold (< -10° C) or too hot (> 28° C), I'm driving.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex
User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 3588
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 07:56
Location: Newyorkachusetts

Re: Infrastructure

Post by Jasper »

So, like Celebration, FL, but designed by government.
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 31129
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Infrastructure

Post by Warren »

It's been a goal in certain quarters for a long time now. I have vague recollections of a few development projects built around it. IIRC, none of them remained true to the design intent five years out.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 21269
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Infrastructure

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

To a limited extent Reston, Virginia and to a larger extent Columbia, Maryland were attempts at creating suburban 20 minute villages: communities in which kids could walk to their local elementary school without having to cross any major highways, mini-malls with a grocery store, drug store, dry cleaner, etc. No one would have tried to do that in the cities back in the 60s and 70s because white people were still fleeing or had just fled the cities and had no interest in returning.

But Reston was at the time considered the exurbs of D.C. and there were no jobs besides retail sales in the Tyson's Corner area, so people still commuted to their jobs. So, too, with Columbia, it's one thing to try to make a livable neighborhood, quite another to eliminate the need to commute to work.

It would be at least a bit ironic if telecommuting, rather than letting employees live in log cabins in the wilderness, ended up being the key factor in the reurbanization of America. That said, let's wait until Millennials start having families and see where they end up living.
User avatar
nicole
Posts: 11125
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Infrastructure

Post by nicole »

D.A. Ridgely wrote: 02 Mar 2020, 13:41 To a limited extent Reston, Virginia and to a larger extent Columbia, Maryland were attempts at creating suburban 20 minute villages: communities in which kids could walk to their local elementary school without having to cross any major highways, mini-malls with a grocery store, drug store, dry cleaner, etc. No one would have tried to do that in the cities back in the 60s and 70s because white people were still fleeing or had just fled the cities and had no interest in returning.

But Reston was at the time considered the exurbs of D.C. and there were no jobs besides retail sales in the Tyson's Corner area, so people still commuted to their jobs. So, too, with Columbia, it's one thing to try to make a livable neighborhood, quite another to eliminate the need to commute to work.

It would be at least a bit ironic if telecommuting, rather than letting employees live in log cabins in the wilderness, ended up being the key factor in the reurbanization of America. That said, let's wait until Millennials start having families and see where they end up living.
The "20-minute neighborhood" concept explicitly excludes work:
These are things such as shopping, business services, education, community facilities, recreational and sporting resources, and some jobs (but probably not brain surgery).
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex
User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 17948
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Infrastructure

Post by Aresen »

Would the 20 minute neighbourhood include a Six Minute Louvre?
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex
User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 13825
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: Infrastructure

Post by Ellie »

Maybe I just eat a shit-ton of food but I've never walked to the grocery store if I could drive, even if it was just a couple blocks away. Either I'd be walking there every day or I'd be struggling to carry all my purchases back. I'm too lazy for either of those scenarios.
Like baptists at the glory hole

"oh dear" they mutter, unzipping their pants

-dhex
Post Reply