That is, on the 'planning' phase--and, no, not a single centimetre of road has been paved yet, with the total price tag coming in at US$ 3.6b (projected; I think it'll be way more)
Oil money plus unimaginative bureaucrats equals stupidly overpriced highway projects.
I wonder if Iceland has the same problems. The tunnel under the fjord to Akranes seems a completely bonkers scale of development for that size of country. But they built it.
Oh, well, Iceland has no oil money to speak off--but a lot of geothermal energy plus aluminium smelting plants…
I had to google that project, and here's what I found (via Wikipedia)
The original plan assumed it would take 20 years (until 2018) to pay back the cost of building the tunnel, but the traffic volume has proved to be significantly higher than originally projected. The volume of traffic is so high that the operator of the tunnel has suggested building a new tunnel alongside the current one because traffic is reaching the threshold mandated by a European regulation (8,000 vehicles daily) over which traffic in opposing directions should be separated.
I guess my understanding of what should be possible is permanently depressed by countries like Canada where a region of 300,000 people would be treated as a backwater in which absolutely nothing gets accomplished.
Oh, well, that seems to be the consequence of living blissfully unaware of whatever is going on for too long and without having had to face the consequences (yet).
I saw the 40bn, and immediately did as I always do when reading about (predictably failing) infrastructural investments in WEF/globalist-dominated nations:
"So if the same sum was invested in the pre-existing infrastructure, how much more efficient would it become?"
Say 40 000 000 000 NSK spent on more and larger ferries f.e. We can throw in maintenance in the cost as well.
Of course, improving pre-existing structures removes profit incentives from corporations and politicians. As does intelligent and effect-optimal solutions.
Look at a map of Scania and Denmark. Notice how much closer together Helsingör and Helsingborg is compared to Malmö and Copenhagen. Yet, the bridge was built between those two.
The logical logistical choice is H+H. Not only a shorter bridge, but traffic would bypass Malmö and Copenhagen completely, removing the need for extensive expensive rebuildings and redrawings of highways et c.
But Malmö and Copenhagen had more political clout and putting the bridge where it is was more profitable to capitalists, and also prestigeful (except for all the East European workers who died building it), so it is where it's at.
I bring this up because I'm certain the exact same is in play in Norway: prestige, profiteering and political pull outweighing logic and logistics.
'Of course, improving pre-existing structures removes profit incentives from corporations and politicians.'
But if 'profits™' are really loot from public coffers, what kind of incentive would that be?
I once thought that these kinds of stupid things were not really done in Scandinavia; almost five years of living here have taught me otherwise (note that this doesn't mean it's not worse elsewhere).
The state paid, and the private sector delivered top quality as per specs.
It worked because there was mutual trust. Our contracts back then where usually no more than 2-4 A4 pages long, even for major projects - no need for detail.
If the county hired Bob's Builders to erect a bridge, then the contract only needed to stipulate type of bridge, payment to Bob's company, and date of completion.
Bob would build the bridge right - wouldn't occur to him to do otherwise and make a tidy gain from doing so.
Come neo-liberalism and Friedman/Hayek-inspired economics and American capitalist ethics, the ethos is business and politics is now "Profit for me now, with no cost and no risk equals moral".
I'd argue it's way worse in Norway, though: unlike neighbouring Western European countries (say, Sweden), the 1980s didn't bring the end of gov't spending sprees (due to oil and gas), and that combination with the things you note has demoralised the resident population (note that Norwegians are subjects, not citizens) as the state hands out perks, favours, and the like. There's little to no accountability demanded by the public as they too receive said things from the state.
The consequence is, of course, the same: On that, nothing but ruin can be built.
Oil money plus unimaginative bureaucrats equals stupidly overpriced highway projects.
I wonder if Iceland has the same problems. The tunnel under the fjord to Akranes seems a completely bonkers scale of development for that size of country. But they built it.
Oh, well, Iceland has no oil money to speak off--but a lot of geothermal energy plus aluminium smelting plants…
I had to google that project, and here's what I found (via Wikipedia)
The original plan assumed it would take 20 years (until 2018) to pay back the cost of building the tunnel, but the traffic volume has proved to be significantly higher than originally projected. The volume of traffic is so high that the operator of the tunnel has suggested building a new tunnel alongside the current one because traffic is reaching the threshold mandated by a European regulation (8,000 vehicles daily) over which traffic in opposing directions should be separated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hvalfj%C3%B6r%C3%B0ur_Tunnel
It's obviously worse than either of us imagined.
I guess my understanding of what should be possible is permanently depressed by countries like Canada where a region of 300,000 people would be treated as a backwater in which absolutely nothing gets accomplished.
Oh, well, that seems to be the consequence of living blissfully unaware of whatever is going on for too long and without having had to face the consequences (yet).
I saw the 40bn, and immediately did as I always do when reading about (predictably failing) infrastructural investments in WEF/globalist-dominated nations:
"So if the same sum was invested in the pre-existing infrastructure, how much more efficient would it become?"
Say 40 000 000 000 NSK spent on more and larger ferries f.e. We can throw in maintenance in the cost as well.
Of course, improving pre-existing structures removes profit incentives from corporations and politicians. As does intelligent and effect-optimal solutions.
Look at a map of Scania and Denmark. Notice how much closer together Helsingör and Helsingborg is compared to Malmö and Copenhagen. Yet, the bridge was built between those two.
The logical logistical choice is H+H. Not only a shorter bridge, but traffic would bypass Malmö and Copenhagen completely, removing the need for extensive expensive rebuildings and redrawings of highways et c.
But Malmö and Copenhagen had more political clout and putting the bridge where it is was more profitable to capitalists, and also prestigeful (except for all the East European workers who died building it), so it is where it's at.
I bring this up because I'm certain the exact same is in play in Norway: prestige, profiteering and political pull outweighing logic and logistics.
Ah, you write:
'Of course, improving pre-existing structures removes profit incentives from corporations and politicians.'
But if 'profits™' are really loot from public coffers, what kind of incentive would that be?
I once thought that these kinds of stupid things were not really done in Scandinavia; almost five years of living here have taught me otherwise (note that this doesn't mean it's not worse elsewhere).
Pre-1990s it was done right:
The state paid, and the private sector delivered top quality as per specs.
It worked because there was mutual trust. Our contracts back then where usually no more than 2-4 A4 pages long, even for major projects - no need for detail.
If the county hired Bob's Builders to erect a bridge, then the contract only needed to stipulate type of bridge, payment to Bob's company, and date of completion.
Bob would build the bridge right - wouldn't occur to him to do otherwise and make a tidy gain from doing so.
Come neo-liberalism and Friedman/Hayek-inspired economics and American capitalist ethics, the ethos is business and politics is now "Profit for me now, with no cost and no risk equals moral".
On that, nothing but ruin can be built.
I'd argue it's way worse in Norway, though: unlike neighbouring Western European countries (say, Sweden), the 1980s didn't bring the end of gov't spending sprees (due to oil and gas), and that combination with the things you note has demoralised the resident population (note that Norwegians are subjects, not citizens) as the state hands out perks, favours, and the like. There's little to no accountability demanded by the public as they too receive said things from the state.
The consequence is, of course, the same: On that, nothing but ruin can be built.