But I do wonder if, when comparing our pricing issues to other developed countries, there isn’t some Baumol’s going on here.
It just is true that an hour of time for a worker building a subway or power line or whatever in the US IS going to cost more nominal dollars than in Spain or Italy. Doing a rough estimate based on median incomes, it could be nearly double.
That isn’t to say the things listed here aren’t huge problems that should be fixed as quickly as possible. But if a power line worked in Spain makes $20k a year and here they make $50k…that’s gonna be what it is.
This is a stupid question: but why don't we allow foreign investment with a country like China help us build transit in the U.S. It seemed to work 100+ years ago with the railroads. I could see the biggest issues stemming from deregulation and land use bureaucracy. But if California for example already green-lit the land use for the high speed rail then it seems like there's something else at play here?!
The playbook names every cost driver except the one with a union attached. NYC tunnels with a multiple of Europe’s labor per task, and that’s the chapter nobody volunteered to write. Filing it under “state capacity” is how you avoid filing it under “labor.”
Not a fun convo to have as a fan of labor but a convo that has to be had.
Lowest-bid and rigid was a reaction to discretion being abused. Give that discretion back to a hollowed-out, consultant-run agency and you don’t get Italy, you get a capture machine with fewer veto points. Capacity first, then discretion. Backwards just wastes money faster. That gets into broader than transit issues such as civil service pay caps and just the general multi decade challenge that is revitalizing state capacity.
State capacity. Abundance’s hardest sell and most important precondition. You can pass the bill in a term. You can’t recruit, train, season, and empower a bureaucracy in a term. That mismatch is why it always loses to the faster, flashier fixes.
I can't escape that the thought that until non-transit is not cost competitive to transit, most of the US will stick to non-transit. NYC seeing ridership boost after they implemented congestion pricing is just hard to ignore.
Similarly, I love Tokyo as much as anyone; but I can't ignore that it is a massive cost for people to own cars there. Flat out not allowed to buy one if you don't have a place to park it. Meanwhile, in the US we won't let most homes be built if they don't allow for parking spots. Heck, we often have the same requirement for businesses.
What are there success stories in the US of transit? https://ifp.org/share-the-truth-about-transit-project-failures/ is a great idea, it seems. And I would expect it to start with a list of all project failures. As it is, I confess I don't know what are considered failed transit programs in the US.
In terms of process reform, virtually everything written for transport applies to energy - and without doubt generally. Streamlining and regulatory modernisation reform is so badly needed in the US across the board
> Environmentalists can celebrate the construction of megaprojects that reduce pollution.
Or, they could find a way to complain that the project displaces too many beetles or mice, and they were here first, And That's Terrible. What were you saying about veto points?
Whle all of this is largely good and as a dirty leftie I don't really have a problem with it isn't the overwhelming problem that basically -
The Situation - A Farmer With Lots of Land Doesn't Want a rail line built through it.
In The US, he can sue for approximately 5 zillion years and he has the inherent right to do so.
In most of Europe, the government can say, 'f you, here's market value for the land, you have no recourse.'
Like yes, environmental review is a problem and the French did choose to work w/ Morocco instead of US due to a variety of rules, but general land rights is actually the biggest problem and we could cut 'n' paste the other rules in Spain, France, Japan, or other places with much cheaper construction costs and we'd still be boned?
I think eminent domain in the US is adjudicated smoothly enough when it comes to the actual taking of land. Most of the lawsuit time spent is over what qualifies as just compensation under the Takings Clause. That eats up a lot of billable hours, but it is usually done after the fact of the taking.
Amazing write up. This is the boring stuff that actually makes society function better and we could use more of it. Now how do we get this in front of the right people, and make normies care about it?
Deploy the reasoning to projects that actually improve something in the proposed locale. Building mass transit needs a taxpayer business case based on credible benefits. Building mass transit that connects comparatively few people to comparatively few destinations without rock-solid schedule reliability is not going to "make normies care about it" except to oppose it.
San Francisco’s Van Ness BRT while it was more expensive than it should be seems to be working. So what did they do right?
Of course, drivers should mostly get trained not to take Van Ness regularly leaving it for the number of exceptional drivers like me 😊, who only rarely need to drive down it. And that said, I also would take the bus if I want to get to Aquatic Park.
This looks like an amazing set of recommendations that if followed would totally change the game. I’m just so depressed by what I see as the dismal prospects of anyone following any of them.
I think this post is wonderful, but has about a zero percent chance of ever happening, since a more efficient transit system is simply not a priority of U.S. politicians in a country where over 90% of people drive everywhere.
From a partisan standpoint, Democrats see a more efficient transit system as way down in the priority list, and not worth spending political capital or compromising other progressive priorities to achieve. And Republicans, simply don't want transit to become more efficient because it would weaken their argument that all government services are bloated and filled with waste. They would rather simply cut funding for transit, and leave all the bloat in place for what money remains, so they can use that bloat to get people to vote for Republicans in the next election.
I wish I were wrong here, but I just don't see it.
"And Republicans, simply don't want transit to become more efficient because it would weaken their argument that all government services are bloated and filled with waste."
I hear this caricature a lot about Republicans, and I'm sure it's true about a few of them. But not true about Republicans more broadly. In fact you can see that Republicans in states like Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee etc are very much interested in making education work and driving real improvements. And doing it without spending a ton more money.
Most Republicans want government to work, though they will disagree with Democrats on what the scope of that government should be. And definitely disagree about the union bloat that causes much of government not to work.
There are a few exceptions, but if you look at how Republicans actually campaign, the vast majority of them are far more concerned about winning the culture wars than making government more efficient and improving kids' reading and bath skills.
Ok but it’s a chicken-and-egg problem, right? Most people drive everywhere because public transit sucks, and then they say “there’s no point improving public transit, because people drive everywhere.”
Not really a chicken/egg problem. In most US locales, distribution of housing, business, and retail make car replacement impractical. In Manhattan, there's a subway stop every nine blocks. If you live west of Dulles and work in Chantilly, what's your alternative to a personal car? If you live in Castle Rock and work in Aurora, why would you drive to the light rail when you can take the E470 door-to-door?
Many people drive everywhere because they don't want to live in high-density mixed-use areas. They also have no interest in paying for "mass" transit that would reliably get them where they need to be on time. A bus system that would satisfy our hypothetical DC and Denver-area residents above would be incredibly costly.
It depends on the area. Certainly not everywhere, but in many places, it is a chicken-and-egg problem. It is also true that more people would be willing to live in mixed-use walkable neighborhoods if one of the major downsides (not being able to park a car as easily) were mitigated by transit being better.
There are lots of bad stakeholders and conflicts that cause these problems, but at a fundamental level it is mainly a matter of competence. Infrastructure schemes would work much better if a few senior people learned easily available lessons and were better at their jobs.
It wouldn't solve the underlying problem of what transit projects actually have a business case in a particular location. Being great at building transit doesn't help if there's no transit system design that can replace private cars in an area.
It seems like this will be opposed by an awkward alliance of people who don't want it to be built *at all* (nimbys, conservatives, some environmentalists) and people who either don't care about the price or want it to be expensive (anyone who profits from the construction). How do we crush both groups simultaneously?
Love and agree with all of this.
But I do wonder if, when comparing our pricing issues to other developed countries, there isn’t some Baumol’s going on here.
It just is true that an hour of time for a worker building a subway or power line or whatever in the US IS going to cost more nominal dollars than in Spain or Italy. Doing a rough estimate based on median incomes, it could be nearly double.
That isn’t to say the things listed here aren’t huge problems that should be fixed as quickly as possible. But if a power line worked in Spain makes $20k a year and here they make $50k…that’s gonna be what it is.
This is a stupid question: but why don't we allow foreign investment with a country like China help us build transit in the U.S. It seemed to work 100+ years ago with the railroads. I could see the biggest issues stemming from deregulation and land use bureaucracy. But if California for example already green-lit the land use for the high speed rail then it seems like there's something else at play here?!
California is ALL environmental review and then NGOs and citizens suing to get more environmental review.
The playbook names every cost driver except the one with a union attached. NYC tunnels with a multiple of Europe’s labor per task, and that’s the chapter nobody volunteered to write. Filing it under “state capacity” is how you avoid filing it under “labor.”
Not a fun convo to have as a fan of labor but a convo that has to be had.
Lowest-bid and rigid was a reaction to discretion being abused. Give that discretion back to a hollowed-out, consultant-run agency and you don’t get Italy, you get a capture machine with fewer veto points. Capacity first, then discretion. Backwards just wastes money faster. That gets into broader than transit issues such as civil service pay caps and just the general multi decade challenge that is revitalizing state capacity.
State capacity. Abundance’s hardest sell and most important precondition. You can pass the bill in a term. You can’t recruit, train, season, and empower a bureaucracy in a term. That mismatch is why it always loses to the faster, flashier fixes.
I can't escape that the thought that until non-transit is not cost competitive to transit, most of the US will stick to non-transit. NYC seeing ridership boost after they implemented congestion pricing is just hard to ignore.
Similarly, I love Tokyo as much as anyone; but I can't ignore that it is a massive cost for people to own cars there. Flat out not allowed to buy one if you don't have a place to park it. Meanwhile, in the US we won't let most homes be built if they don't allow for parking spots. Heck, we often have the same requirement for businesses.
What are there success stories in the US of transit? https://ifp.org/share-the-truth-about-transit-project-failures/ is a great idea, it seems. And I would expect it to start with a list of all project failures. As it is, I confess I don't know what are considered failed transit programs in the US.
In terms of process reform, virtually everything written for transport applies to energy - and without doubt generally. Streamlining and regulatory modernisation reform is so badly needed in the US across the board
> Environmentalists can celebrate the construction of megaprojects that reduce pollution.
Or, they could find a way to complain that the project displaces too many beetles or mice, and they were here first, And That's Terrible. What were you saying about veto points?
Whle all of this is largely good and as a dirty leftie I don't really have a problem with it isn't the overwhelming problem that basically -
The Situation - A Farmer With Lots of Land Doesn't Want a rail line built through it.
In The US, he can sue for approximately 5 zillion years and he has the inherent right to do so.
In most of Europe, the government can say, 'f you, here's market value for the land, you have no recourse.'
Like yes, environmental review is a problem and the French did choose to work w/ Morocco instead of US due to a variety of rules, but general land rights is actually the biggest problem and we could cut 'n' paste the other rules in Spain, France, Japan, or other places with much cheaper construction costs and we'd still be boned?
I think eminent domain in the US is adjudicated smoothly enough when it comes to the actual taking of land. Most of the lawsuit time spent is over what qualifies as just compensation under the Takings Clause. That eats up a lot of billable hours, but it is usually done after the fact of the taking.
Amazing write up. This is the boring stuff that actually makes society function better and we could use more of it. Now how do we get this in front of the right people, and make normies care about it?
Deploy the reasoning to projects that actually improve something in the proposed locale. Building mass transit needs a taxpayer business case based on credible benefits. Building mass transit that connects comparatively few people to comparatively few destinations without rock-solid schedule reliability is not going to "make normies care about it" except to oppose it.
San Francisco’s Van Ness BRT while it was more expensive than it should be seems to be working. So what did they do right?
Of course, drivers should mostly get trained not to take Van Ness regularly leaving it for the number of exceptional drivers like me 😊, who only rarely need to drive down it. And that said, I also would take the bus if I want to get to Aquatic Park.
I think they’re planning Geary BRT now too.
And what do you do when you need to get somewhere it doesn't go at a time it doesn't support?
There’s multiple bus lines + BART? Any time not supported is late night/early morning, and I would just drive like I said.
*stands and applauds*
This looks like an amazing set of recommendations that if followed would totally change the game. I’m just so depressed by what I see as the dismal prospects of anyone following any of them.
I think this post is wonderful, but has about a zero percent chance of ever happening, since a more efficient transit system is simply not a priority of U.S. politicians in a country where over 90% of people drive everywhere.
From a partisan standpoint, Democrats see a more efficient transit system as way down in the priority list, and not worth spending political capital or compromising other progressive priorities to achieve. And Republicans, simply don't want transit to become more efficient because it would weaken their argument that all government services are bloated and filled with waste. They would rather simply cut funding for transit, and leave all the bloat in place for what money remains, so they can use that bloat to get people to vote for Republicans in the next election.
I wish I were wrong here, but I just don't see it.
"And Republicans, simply don't want transit to become more efficient because it would weaken their argument that all government services are bloated and filled with waste."
I hear this caricature a lot about Republicans, and I'm sure it's true about a few of them. But not true about Republicans more broadly. In fact you can see that Republicans in states like Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee etc are very much interested in making education work and driving real improvements. And doing it without spending a ton more money.
Most Republicans want government to work, though they will disagree with Democrats on what the scope of that government should be. And definitely disagree about the union bloat that causes much of government not to work.
There are a few exceptions, but if you look at how Republicans actually campaign, the vast majority of them are far more concerned about winning the culture wars than making government more efficient and improving kids' reading and bath skills.
I think this is largely accurate at the federal level. Much less so at the state level
Ok but it’s a chicken-and-egg problem, right? Most people drive everywhere because public transit sucks, and then they say “there’s no point improving public transit, because people drive everywhere.”
Not really a chicken/egg problem. In most US locales, distribution of housing, business, and retail make car replacement impractical. In Manhattan, there's a subway stop every nine blocks. If you live west of Dulles and work in Chantilly, what's your alternative to a personal car? If you live in Castle Rock and work in Aurora, why would you drive to the light rail when you can take the E470 door-to-door?
Many people drive everywhere because they don't want to live in high-density mixed-use areas. They also have no interest in paying for "mass" transit that would reliably get them where they need to be on time. A bus system that would satisfy our hypothetical DC and Denver-area residents above would be incredibly costly.
It depends on the area. Certainly not everywhere, but in many places, it is a chicken-and-egg problem. It is also true that more people would be willing to live in mixed-use walkable neighborhoods if one of the major downsides (not being able to park a car as easily) were mitigated by transit being better.
There are lots of bad stakeholders and conflicts that cause these problems, but at a fundamental level it is mainly a matter of competence. Infrastructure schemes would work much better if a few senior people learned easily available lessons and were better at their jobs.
It wouldn't solve the underlying problem of what transit projects actually have a business case in a particular location. Being great at building transit doesn't help if there's no transit system design that can replace private cars in an area.
"Environmentalists can celebrate the construction of megaprojects that reduce pollution."
And other fairy tales from the parallel universe of Sane, Reasonable Earth.
It seems like this will be opposed by an awkward alliance of people who don't want it to be built *at all* (nimbys, conservatives, some environmentalists) and people who either don't care about the price or want it to be expensive (anyone who profits from the construction). How do we crush both groups simultaneously?
Create an honest, closed business case for every project, where the business case doesn't invent phantom costs like "driver subsidies."