BigGav - New York Times has a column on the inability of the United States to build new transport infrastructure
"The Chinese could build it. The Turks could build it. We can't build it. "
We are the mightiest nation mankind has ever seen. But we can't seem to build a railroad tunnel to carry commuters between New Jersey and New York.
...The project had been in the works for 20 years, and ground had already been broken when the governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, rejected the project on Thursday, saying that his state could not afford its share of the costs.
This is a railroad tunnel we're talking about. We're not trying to go to the Moon. This is not the Manhattan Project. It's a railroad tunnel that's needed to take people back and forth to work and to ease the pressure on the existing tunnel, a wilting two-track facility that's about 100 years old. What is the matter with us?
...The project had been in the works for 20 years, and ground had already been broken when the governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, rejected the project on Thursday, saying that his state could not afford its share of the costs.
This is a railroad tunnel we're talking about. We're not trying to go to the Moon. This is not the Manhattan Project. It's a railroad tunnel that's needed to take people back and forth to work and to ease the pressure on the existing tunnel, a wilting two-track facility that's about 100 years old. What is the matter with us?
P.S. The BBC reports drilling of the world's longest tunnel, under the Alps, has been completed - Swiss complete world's longest tunnel.
More NY Rail FAIL...
UPDATE:
When New Jersey Governor Chris Christie recently pulled out of the proposed Hudson River rail tunnel, angst gripped the editorial pages of the New York Times and elsewhere...they fail to mention that Christie vetoed the project because huge cost overruns would have imposed a crushing burden on New Jersey taxpayers. Paul Krugman (not surprisingly) counters that getting rid of what economists call “externalities” (such as traffic congestion) would magically transform the multibillion-dollar expenditures from red to black ink. Therefore, a costly boondoggle always can be justified as a net plus for taxpayers. Krugman writes:
Today, we see economic analysis turned on its head. Projected cost overruns suddenly are justified because “they provide jobs,” as though higher costs mean more wealth created...this was a multibillion-dollar project to aid a subsidized industry, which means that in the end, it would have enabled the consumption of more wealth than it allegedly would create.
In contrast, the existing rail tunnel under the Hudson was built by the Pennsylvania Railroad a century ago, and despite the modern declarations that government must provide such things, the company did it because it was good business. There was none of the convoluted “this lowers externalities” arguments we hear from people like Krugman as justification for the rail tunnel. The old tunnel was governed in large part by market prices so there was a market-driven return on investment.
UPDATE:
When New Jersey Governor Chris Christie recently pulled out of the proposed Hudson River rail tunnel, angst gripped the editorial pages of the New York Times and elsewhere...they fail to mention that Christie vetoed the project because huge cost overruns would have imposed a crushing burden on New Jersey taxpayers. Paul Krugman (not surprisingly) counters that getting rid of what economists call “externalities” (such as traffic congestion) would magically transform the multibillion-dollar expenditures from red to black ink. Therefore, a costly boondoggle always can be justified as a net plus for taxpayers. Krugman writes:
It was a destructive and incredibly foolish decision on multiple levels. But it shouldn’t have been all that surprising. We are no longer the nation that used to amaze the world with its visionary projects. We have become, instead, a nation whose politicians seem to compete over who can show the least vision, the least concern about the future and the greatest willingness to pander to short-term, narrow-minded selfishness.I hate to interrupt this self-righteous pity party, but if there ever were a “Not So Fast” moment, this is it. A public-works project such as the proposed tunnel makes sense if over time the marginal benefits outweigh the marginal costs. If they do not, then it provides a benefit to some at the expense of others,
Today, we see economic analysis turned on its head. Projected cost overruns suddenly are justified because “they provide jobs,” as though higher costs mean more wealth created...this was a multibillion-dollar project to aid a subsidized industry, which means that in the end, it would have enabled the consumption of more wealth than it allegedly would create.
In contrast, the existing rail tunnel under the Hudson was built by the Pennsylvania Railroad a century ago, and despite the modern declarations that government must provide such things, the company did it because it was good business. There was none of the convoluted “this lowers externalities” arguments we hear from people like Krugman as justification for the rail tunnel. The old tunnel was governed in large part by market prices so there was a market-driven return on investment.
