> The Citylab article...doesn't explain why you believe a non-US comparison is misguided
So you skimmed one article and didn't read the other. Here:
"The Times observed construction on site in Paris, which is building a project similar to the Second Avenue subway at one-sixth the cost."
Most of the factors in the CityLab piece are uniquely American. We pay more for the same infrastructure. Something that makes economic sense for one country may not for America, just as a tractor may make sense for a farmer at $100,000 but not at $10 million. Our inflated costs throw out of whack the balance of costs and benefits that makes certain infrastructure value adding abroad.
TL; DR We can't automatically assume infrastructure that works abroad works here.
The question, again, is why is there such a big difference in the cost? What are taxpayers and consumers of this infrastructure getting in exchange for these higher costs? That is, what's the opportunity cost? Even if it's a cultural opportunity cost, knowing that is party of assessing if it's really worth it.
The issue is in the absence of effective controls on corruption, it's in the self-interest of those holding the reigns to buy a $3 billion tunnel for $12 billion if the latter nets them $10 million in "campaign contributions"
I find it hard to believe U.S. unions and insurance are more expensive than their equivalents in other countries, but maybe - seeing as health insurance is universal everywhere except in the U.S.
> "The Times observed construction on site in Paris, which is building a project similar to the Second Avenue subway at one-sixth the cost."
I'm not taking issue with the fact that similar infrastructure projects have different costs in different countries, nor that there are reasons as to why this is.
I'm trying to understand why you think the comparison is misguided.
Only by way of comparison are we able to ascertain that the US is, probably, paying too much for infrastructure.
I mean, this whole conversation is predicated on the comparison.
It's not that the similar infrastructure can't work in the US; it's that for reasons-known similar infrastructure may be untenable. If the infrastructure was built anyway, say by an Act Of God, it would probably still function as expected.
So you skimmed one article and didn't read the other. Here:
"The Times observed construction on site in Paris, which is building a project similar to the Second Avenue subway at one-sixth the cost."
Most of the factors in the CityLab piece are uniquely American. We pay more for the same infrastructure. Something that makes economic sense for one country may not for America, just as a tractor may make sense for a farmer at $100,000 but not at $10 million. Our inflated costs throw out of whack the balance of costs and benefits that makes certain infrastructure value adding abroad.
TL; DR We can't automatically assume infrastructure that works abroad works here.