So one thing that's deceptive about that graph is that the projects are far from equal in per-mile complexity. The 1988 Jamaica extensions service a relatively sparsely populated area, with ready access for construction vehicles (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica%E2%80%93179th_Street_s... ) - by contrast, the proposed Manhattan projects in 2019 require much more engineering to route around limited access, preserve above-ground activities, and ensure reinforcement given large skyscrapers above. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway#Construct...
But there are certainly likely other factors. One might imagine that as alternative modes of transportation (ridesharing, etc.) become more commonplace, prices would go down in a competitive marketplace. But one might also imagine that established construction firms might see things like ridesharing (or other decreases in construction costs) as damaging to their long-term stability; they may therefore do things like lobby the city for increased regulations that would cause the proposed project to drag out even longer and provide increased financial stability to the firm. (An alternate read on this is that the firms are finally catching up to increased standards for labor and health, and this was not priced in in the past... but that's a very optimistic read.)
Why on earth would you want to encourage subway commuters to switch to ride sharing?! Ride sharing is a good intermediate solution, better than individual vehicles, but it still causes noise, pollution and traffic. We need to do everything we can to encourage people to avoid cars and adopt public transport
Has corruption, graft and mismanagement increased so sharply over the last few decades? I don't picture, say, the NYC of Robert Moses as being particularly free of corruption and graft. And yet, they seem to have been able to build Subways much cheaper
My working theory is graft and corruption can coexist with effective management of projects.
I also have an impression that the US mostly stopped building infrastructure like subways which has various negative effects. Lack of experienced engineering oversight, lack of local engineering talent, no experienced workforce. Weak industrial capability and support. And milking to death any projects that do get through the approval process.
Wonder how much of it is not treating workers like disposable things? Look at pictures of work crews back in the 30s and you see workers eating lunch - completely unharnessed - on exposed beams 100s of feet in the air. Deaths were common on large projects.
Better worker safety certainly accounts for some increase in costs. But US infrastructure costs aren't only high compared to the past, they're high compared to other modern developed countries. I don't think Spain, for example, is keeping their costs relatively low by treating their construction workers as cannon-fodder.
China built its entire commuter train network in the last ~20 years from almost nothing and now have more track laid than any country by far while doing it for magnitudes less than the US.
If a country that was suffering a self-implied famine killing tens of millions just half a century ago could go from that to high speed rail across half a continent then maybe the foremost superpower for going on a century could think about building a high speed train line anywhere in this century.
Defined benefit pensions are sucking up a lot of resources, as well as fire code/ADA related costs. I’m sure labor costs much more than in decades before, not just in construction, but in permitting and planning.
As the years go on, projects with large liabilities have to go to extreme lengths to show they did their due diligence. Otherwise, it’s a ripe for a lawsuit that says “well you knew that risk existed and did nothing to prevent it” and pays out a few million taxpayer dollars.
Yes, I agree that seemed odd to ignore. The theory that loss of experience results in increasing costs sounds true, but I see nothing to back it up or any thought of alternate explanations. Like models that include economic impact I would expect to skyrocket the costs (in a total sense) when building in areas that get built up over time.
But there are certainly likely other factors. One might imagine that as alternative modes of transportation (ridesharing, etc.) become more commonplace, prices would go down in a competitive marketplace. But one might also imagine that established construction firms might see things like ridesharing (or other decreases in construction costs) as damaging to their long-term stability; they may therefore do things like lobby the city for increased regulations that would cause the proposed project to drag out even longer and provide increased financial stability to the firm. (An alternate read on this is that the firms are finally catching up to increased standards for labor and health, and this was not priced in in the past... but that's a very optimistic read.)