That was my thought too.
For example - imagine the project actually began and it had a proposed budget of $3.1 billion and a timeline of 5 years. 4 years later they would have spent $4.4B (the extra money coming from emergency funds or something) and the project would be 20% finished even though pols said it was "half completed". Then what happens? Do they abandon it? Of course not - it's waaaaaaay too big too fail.
I have a feeling a similar thing is going to happen in most states as they spend the money from the infrastructure bill. Projects will run out of money halfway through. And then we'll learn that construction firms were somehow systemically overcharging "by mistake" nationwide.
CA high speed rail was approved in 2008. they might build something in 2023 and the cost estimate has gone up 2.5x
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail
in that time China has laid more than 32,000 km of high speed rail
Then people use that as evidence that "government is inefficient".
No, our government is inefficient. Government is not inherently inefficient.
It's no accident people believe this, it is the result of a long term political project.
Environmental report is released and to go forward they have to murder 5% of manhattan, poison the water supply, and three endangered species. The project gets approved.
To honor Robert Moses and keep his legacy alive, we also microtargetted 3 different schools and neighbourhoods with mostly black and Puerto Rican residents, which we ground down to their finest atoms.
I honestly don’t think it sounds like a bad idea for throwing around but the US killed off all its productive engineering capital long ago. Any project like this would be incredibly expensive since they would have to pay out for foreign expertise and shipping of equipment.
Yes. the city that can't fund it's basic transit systems can definitely build a giant infill area and use it for housing.
:astronaut-2: :astronaut-1:
"Always have been." - New Netherland
https://twitter.com/AndrewRudansky/status/1482032551824965634
Same proposal 100 years ago.
Isn't this entire area due to experience significant flooding events in the next 100 years?
The Dutch didn't even consider this and they were the first European settlers there. That alone should tell you it's not a good idea.
Doing land reclamation right next to the mouths of two rivers is maybe not such a great idea. If this country can't even keep its bridges in good condition, it has no business trying to build foundations into the sea.
Even if construction goes smoothly (haha can you even imagine...), what's to stop it from becoming a massive, empty investment vehicle?
Massive luxury skyscrapers, empty but for a few air-b-n-bs, owned by gulf state failsons. You love to see it.
I wonder how much space for parking lots they've allotted
$2,000/parking spot monthly cost. when the project is finished in 2197.
Here's how it will go
Start project.
Stop 1/4 through project.
Whole area becomes a shanty town.
Now see, this would make sense and improve everyone's lives, which is why it'll never happen.
