• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Illinois has best infrastructure in america

Peter said:
It might help if you actually funded it properly but that would mean the top end being taxed so that's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Oh, so that's the problem.

Someone should inform the people of Illinois that their taxes are way too low.
 
aociswundumho said:
Oh, so that's the problem.

Someone should inform the people of Illinois that their taxes are way too low.
Click to expand...

Well, engineers aren't magicians and infrastructure is only as good as the money that's allocated to it.
 
Bum said:
All states have some level of corruption....some just higher than others.
Click to expand...

All posters who say a state is corrupt are required by me to show credible evidence of corruption.
 
The scoring in the OP seems to put a lot of weight on broadband access and the population within 500 miles of the state. Not what I generally think of when I think "infrastructure". Illinois posting the winning score tells me road and bridge conditions must not amount to much in the final tally. And yes, corruption is a thing in Illinois. Highway construction is ate up with it. But hey....I was an operating engineer for over 20 years. Crappy roads are job security. "Good enough for government work."
 
RF667799 said:
The scoring in the OP seems to put a lot of weight on broadband access and the population within 500 miles of the state. Not what I generally think of when I think "infrastructure". Illinois posting the winning score tells me road and bridge conditions must not amount to much in the final tally. And yes, corruption is a thing in Illinois. Highway construction is ate up with it. But hey....I was an operating engineer for over 20 years. Crappy roads are job security. "Good enough for government work."
Click to expand...
Small correction, corruption is THE thing in Illinois.
 
Phys251 said:
You can drive around potholes. You can't turn the lights on when the power is out. Right, Texas? ;)
Click to expand...

We're flying electric helicopters on Mars, but you can't turn on your electric clothes dryer in Texas.
This is because scientists are in charge of Mars, and Republicans are in charge of Texas.
 
Phys251 said:
You can drive around potholes. You can't turn the lights on when the power is out. Right, Texas? ;)
Click to expand...
Ive seen sinkholes i couldnt simply drive around where i used to live
 
Peter said:
It might help if you actually funded it properly but that would mean the top end being taxed so that's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

That is not necessarily the problem, Peter. The problem is we are one of the most expensive and slowest countries in the world for major infrastructure projects to be built and maintained. Even if we raised more taxes and threw it at various state and local public works departments, that would not make our infrastructure better or built more quickly or efficiently. And if you care to take a few minutes, I would recommend for your consideration the article by Vox's Jerusalem Demsas who illustrates why it is so time-consuming and costly to get practically anything built in our country. It is almost as massive a scandal as our healthcare system.

www.vox.com

Why does it cost so much to build things in America?

This is why the US can’t have nice things.
www.vox.com www.vox.com
 
Roadvirus said:
Most of that money is going into personal accounts of either the politicians or the head of whatever company is hired to do the job.
Click to expand...
So, if that is the case: How to solve it?
 
aociswundumho said:
Finally!
Click to expand...
With no goverment at al, how to solve the problem? I am just interested because what you are suggesting is anarchy and anarchy does not, by default, solve anything .
 
Felis Leo said:
That is not necessarily the problem, Peter. The problem is we are one of the most expensive and slowest countries in the world for major infrastructure projects to be built and maintained. Even if we raised more taxes and threw it at various state and local public works departments, that would not make our infrastructure better or built more quickly or efficiently. And if you care to take a few minutes, I would recommend for your consideration the article by Vox's Jerusalem Demsas who illustrates why it is so time-consuming and costly to get practically anything built in our country. It is almost as massive a scandal as our healthcare system.

www.vox.com

Why does it cost so much to build things in America?

This is why the US can’t have nice things.
www.vox.com www.vox.com
Click to expand...
If that is the case you have another work of changing the structure of the system ahead of you. How would you think the system should be built if it was done from scratch?
 
Juks said:
If that is the case you have another work of changing the structure of the system ahead of you. How would you think the system should be built if it was done from scratch?
Click to expand...

It is a good question, Juks. One answer among many would probably involve rolling back private citizens being able to bring lawsuits under environmental protection laws in order to stop development and infrastructure projects, at least in already-developed urban areas. Such standing should belong solely to the state and local government with whom the citizens with genuine environmental concerns can file complaints.

I do not know how it works in Sweden, but let us say for the sake of argument that a major infrastructure project is proposed in Stockholm. Say a new suspension bridge. However, this suspension bridge when erected will block the view of the sea from the mansion owned by a wealthy Swedish businessman, who would find it to be an utter eyesore. Would that businessman have the ability to sue to stop the project from going forward because he claims it will displace, oh, I don't know, some endangered Swedish seaside vole? Or would it be up to the Swedish environmental agency to raise that concern?

Because that is where we are in the United States: Private citizens can and do bring suits (often bogus suits) to stop development of both private development and public infrastructure. This process is often abused as a pretext often by very wealthy property owners who use these laws to kill public works projects they think disturb the value or their enjoyment of their land, irrespective of the effects on the environment.
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
It is a good question, Juks. One answer among many would probably involve rolling back private citizens being able to bring lawsuits under environmental protection laws in order to stop development and infrastructure projects, at least in already-developed urban areas. Such standing should belong solely to the state and local government with whom the citizens with genuine environmental concerns can file complaints.

I do not know how it works in Sweden, but let us say for the sake of argument that a major infrastructure project is proposed in Stockholm. Say a new suspension bridge. However, this suspension bridge when erected will block the view of the sea from the mansion owned by a wealthy Swedish businessman, who would find it to be an utter eyesore. Would that businessman have the ability to sue to stop the project from going forward because he claims it will displace, oh, I don't know, some endangered Swedish seaside vole? Or would it be up to the Swedish environmental agency to raise that concern?

Because that is where we are in the United States: Private citizens can and do bring suits (often bogus suits) to stop development of both private development and public infrastructure. This process is often abused as a pretext often by very wealthy property owners who use these laws to kill public works projects they think disturb the value or their enjoyment of their land, irrespective of the effects on the environment.
Click to expand...
It is not an easy process in Sweden either.... (you can stop reading now if you like, the rest of my post is overcourse)

We don't have your system of suing in anything. Money is not an conductive tool in our justice system. We do however have extended laws that protects private ownership and private interests and that regulates how big infrastructure projects should and when they can be and how. You can appeal and maybe even succeed in stopping the project. It is however a complicated process.


We have a system(regulations) for big infrastructure project. First the government decide on a project(if it is a big one otherwise it is the communities, which may be said to equal the states for you) and gives the assignment to put in a suggestion to the agency that is specialized (like the road agency) to present a plan. Private interests are to be considered and minimized at this point. Than different other agencies need to look at it and approve it (Like environmental issues, culture values and so on). Usually it is changed to fit those interested at this time. Then the community that is affected take over the process. They need to put it into their official building plan. Before they can do that they need to put it on display for the community citizens. This is when you as a private citizens can protest. Those close affected should also be informed in person by post. If you further down the road wants to appeal against the decision you have to put your complains in at this time or you'll forgo your right to do so. Any private person can leave their views at this time, but only those private persons that are significant affected can appeal. You can win but it is regulated by laws and you can be compensated but not by much and usually if you are directly affected you will already have been informed of a compensation in the post that the government/community send you. . Usually homeowners go together when they wants to stop these kind of projects(which happens al the time) and uses laws regarding environment and cultural values to stop the project or to change the route, but it is difficult since the state has already taken into account those values before it is send to the community.

Sometimes the state and community has different views on these project. In this case the state has the tool to declare the project to be of national interest and force it on the community. On the other hand the community always needs to put the project into their official building plan so if they just don't make a new detailed plan they can stop the project. The problem for the community is that they then can't build anything else either.
 
Felis Leo said:
It is a good question, Juks. One answer among many would probably involve rolling back private citizens being able to bring lawsuits under environmental protection laws in order to stop development and infrastructure projects, at least in already-developed urban areas. Such standing should belong solely to the state and local government with whom the citizens with genuine environmental concerns can file complaints.

I do not know how it works in Sweden, but let us say for the sake of argument that a major infrastructure project is proposed in Stockholm. Say a new suspension bridge. However, this suspension bridge when erected will block the view of the sea from the mansion owned by a wealthy Swedish businessman, who would find it to be an utter eyesore. Would that businessman have the ability to sue to stop the project from going forward because he claims it will displace, oh, I don't know, some endangered Swedish seaside vole? Or would it be up to the Swedish environmental agency to raise that concern?

Because that is where we are in the United States: Private citizens can and do bring suits (often bogus suits) to stop development of both private development and public infrastructure. This process is often abused as a pretext often by very wealthy property owners who use these laws to kill public works projects they think disturb the value or their enjoyment of their land, irrespective of the effects on the environment.
Click to expand...

I think that is part of the problem, but a lot of it is just our business culture in general that has developed over the last 20 years or so in this country. For example, in a typical tech company/division, there will be more product managers, marketers, project managers, ui experience people and so on than there will be actual software engineers. My brother is an electrician, for every electrician at the electrical contracting company he works for, there are 4 non-electricians (product managers, project managers and so on).

This did not used to be the case. Most companies had more producers than they did managers and support personnel. These days it's the other way around, and thats why it takes much longer to get anything built. I have been in IT groups where engineers were in meetings more than 50% of the time. It's like a big pyramid scheme for consultants and various non-working managerial fiefdoms. Look at the typical American company these days and then look at what percentage of its workforce is actually essential to the company.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom