We're still doing megaprojects [1]. They're focussed on air and roads, in transportation; aerospace (defence and civil); and sports.
> How long has it been since the high speed rail system was proposed? China built a national network in less time
China's population distribution (and lack of strong-form property ownership) makes intercity passenger rail a lot easier than in America. We absolutely should have it in the Northeast. But it's unclear it makes sense almost anywhere else, other than as a drive-on drive-off system. (The case for municipal rail is much stronger.)
"Megaproject" seems to be used pretty loosely in this list.
In my mind, renovating some airport terminals or adding extra lanes to a highway over a 10 mile stretch is not an ambitious "megaproject", just a typical infrastructure project. Certainly most of this stuff would not be considered megaprojects in China.
Just as a point of comparison, the Abraham Lincoln Bridge from the list of megaprojects measures 640 total meters [1]
According to this [2] China's largest 8,816 bridges span a total of 16.21 million linear meters, or an average of 1,838 meters per bridge. So this megaproject bridge in the US might possibly crack the list of the longest 10,000 bridges in China.
The Wikipedia list contains only 2 bridges from China. The smaller one is 32 km...
They are still building but none of these are at the scale China is doing. Most US projects are less than 10B, majority are around 1-2B. Meanwhile this article shows the dam China is building is over 100B.
That is why I mentioned that nothing the west is doing is that exciting, relatively. Sure, they are still large projects, but not the exciting, innovative type of "large" like Saturn V or moon landing. Just rehash and even scaled down versions of what has been achieved before.
I guess military is the only place we still see serious cutting edge advancement in US engineering. Shame that the public won't be able to benefit directly from that unlike infrastructure projects. Almost like China is taking better care of its people than the US.
> nothing the west is doing is that exciting, relatively. Sure, they are still large projects, but not the exciting, innovative type of "large" like Saturn V or moon landing
China also still has huge rivers it can do this with. Where would we bulld a dam like this in North America? I suppose Northern Canada has undeveloped rivers but not this big.
We could I suppose displace tens of millions of people and dam the Mississippi and the Ohio and power a good chunk of the Midwest but we have human rights. I’d rather us build nuclear, wind, solar, and batteries.
> China also still has huge rivers it can do this with
We have more inland waterways than China. There just isn’t an economic case for dropping a huge dam here—our power growth is amply satisfied by cheaper solar and gas.
Considering transmission losses it might make more sense to dam many smaller rivers. And the Mississippi is an important freight route, a dam would complicate that.
Seeing Austin’s Project Connect on there makes this list suspect, to me. It was an approved item on the ballot several years ago, but it was challenged by the state government and last I read had been substantially pared down from its already modest goals. Even in the original plan, it was “just” a relatively small number of train lines around the city, with one stretch of subway through downtown, if I recall correctly.
billion-dollar stadiums paid for by tax dollars for those poor billionaire sports team owners because their current stadium just doesn't work anymore :(. But think of all those jobs it will add to the economy from people selling beer and hotdogs.
Aha, I’m just not sure a stadium has the same level of developmental or economic impact as a high-speed rail line, power generation, airports or road infrastructure. It’s also usually far less challenging: build new structure on old stadium’s parking lot, demolish old stadium and turn that into a parking lot, done. None of those new stadiums in the US even have the capacity of say Maracanã or Azteca, both built in the mid 20th century.
> not sure a stadium has the same level of developmental or economic impact as a high-speed rail line, power generation, airports or road infrastructure
They’re a total waste of money. But the point remains that America is adding power generation, roads and airport infrastructure at a fast clip. Given China has clearly overbuilt, it’s not clear how much of their non-power infrastructure is actually yielding.
Come on, just search the keyword "nail house in China" on the Internet[1] [2].And the latest news: China's National Highway 206 was planned to pass by this house, the owner asked for an unreasonable amount of compensation, and then they screwed up. Location: Jinxi a county of Jiangxi province[3]
> How long has it been since the high speed rail system was proposed? China built a national network in less time
China's population distribution (and lack of strong-form property ownership) makes intercity passenger rail a lot easier than in America. We absolutely should have it in the Northeast. But it's unclear it makes sense almost anywhere else, other than as a drive-on drive-off system. (The case for municipal rail is much stronger.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_megaprojects#North_Ame...