Quote:I had the good fortune to travel this winter to Venice, that serene collection of islands filled with grand homes and set on avenues of water in a lagoon on Italy’s Adriatic Sea. And like most visitors, I was smitten with the lovely stone plazas, or “campi,” sprinkled amid its network of small alley-like streets.

Given that Venetians in centuries past had to dredge up and fortify each square meter of buildable land, I was surprised at how many of these plazas there were, and wondered if Venetians simply loved their public spaces that much. I learned that there was a more practical and essential reason for so many campi: drinkable water.

Venice has no fresh groundwater underneath it, so it initially had to rely on rainwater for drinking. At the center of each campi is what looks like a stone well but is actually a cistern. In addition, each square has four drains. The rain that falls into them enters a filtration system made of rock and sand that ends at the cistern.

The campi and its cisterns reminded me of the larger story of infrastructure that plays out in America and everywhere else -- that it is about much more than serving a specific need for, say, roads to convey us from place to place. The complex interplay of infrastructure, commerce and government determines not only how our societies function but also reflects how -- and if -- we govern ourselves.

For Venice, the water system was just one of many factors that enabled a city lacking natural resources to climb and stay at the top of the hierarchy of wealth and status in Europe for at least half a millennium. This city, which during its heyday was really a nation and empire of its own, was motivated to trade and cooperate with other cities and nations because of its natural environment. Some scholars believe it was because Venice had to dredge land, sink pilings, build bulkheads and so on that pushed its residents to govern themselves, a rare feat for the time, rather than descending into the bloody wars of kings and aristocracy.

While kings fought over the rest of Europe, Venice was a republic from 697 to 1797. That last year, Napoleon conquered it with nary a shot, thus ending the Venetian republic and the reign of the last doge, its elected leader. Having won, the short Corsican handed the city, to its horror, over to Austria, which it remained part of for most of the 19th century.

Under its new overlords, the elaborate infrastructure systems Venice had in place declined. The Austrians did improve its transport to the mainland by building a bridge. But it came at a price because it ended the city’s sacred physical independence. Other systems were neglected as well. By the mid-19th century, only a minority of the cisterns still functioned, and the city’s sewer system, which funneled waste from houses and streets into canals, was barely working. Venice began to suffer episodes of disease and a reputation for foul-smelling canals. This was the background of Thomas Mann’s 1912 masterpiece, Death in Venice, in which the novella’s main character is stricken during an outbreak of cholera. Mann presents the epidemic as an act of God. But it was really the product -- at least in part -- of a dysfunctioning political system.

In recent decades, our own fragmented infrastructure systems have decayed physically as well. Is this because we, like Venice in the 19th century, are decaying politically and unable to govern ourselves? It’s clear that our roads, bridges, water and other systems are generally considered to be in the worst state of repair in our republic’s history. And we are spending less than ever on infrastructure. What’s unclear is whether we can pull it back together.

Perhaps we can. When I look around our country, it’s not hard to find big, bold infrastructure projects. In Manhattan, it was national news when the first leg of the Second Avenue subway opened this New Year’s Day. As one of the initial riders, I can attest to the joy New Yorkers expressed as they walked through the stations, gleaming with public art, and rode the new trains. The smiles reflected not only pent-up demand but also gladness to see that America can still do stuff. And in last November’s elections, Los Angeles, Seattle and other cities approved tax increases for new revenue streams to support rail, bus, water and other systems.

Our new president has promised that he will make trains zoom and bridges sparkle to match those in Europe and Asia. But it’s always been difficult in this country to build public works. Thanks in part to our English roots, we have a fragmented governing infrastructure -- local, state and federal, plus an independent judiciary -- that produces fragmented physical infrastructure. It’s no accident that former English colonies tend to lack things taken for granted in other advanced countries, such as high-speed rail.

But things are still possible. Venice got out of Austria’s grip when it joined the newly unifying Italy in 1866. Two decades later, an underground aqueduct was built from the city to the mainland, finally ending Venice’s water troubles.

Let’s hope we can find ways to keep our infrastructure systems going and to build needed new ones. And let’s hope we can do it the best way, through our democratic institutions and without the help or hindrance of any Napoleons.

(04-04-2017, 06:35 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I think a big problem with infrastructure today is, isn't it all union work now? Unions were good in the past when they were needed, but after this long of fighting for more pay for less work, we've gotten to the point where projects just take far too long and cost far too much.

Look at that bridge in Atlanta that collapsed from the fire. 350ft of interstate needs to be replaced. It is going to take multiple months and they have set aside $10m to fix it.

Think about that. 350ft of interstate will take multiple months and cost $10m. Are they hand crafting this shit out of marble carried by foot from the mine?

Meanwhile in 55 BC, the Romans built a 1,000 ft bridge across a river that was 30ft deep to march 40,000 people and their supplies across it. It took them 10 days.

(04-04-2017, 07:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's definitely not all union. Unions are all but non-existent in some states, Virginia included. What unions do exist are tiny and don't have near the power they do in other states.

As for the cost and the time, there are a lot of things the general public doesn't think about included in a project like that. If we were to create a temporary structure to get troops across a river, the SeaBees or the Army CoE could do it in a matter of hours, most likely. But a project like this is a much more complicated endeavor.

(04-04-2017, 07:41 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Such as? Because I look at construction and see machines sitting there with nobody working, or 1-2 guys working and 4 guys sitting around.

Always looks to me like they intentionally take their time so there's no/as little of a gap between jobs as possible. Turn a 1 week job into a 1 month job so you don't have your guys with no job to do for 3 weeks while you wait for your next job. Of course then they need paid for 4 weeks of work rather than 1 week.

(04-04-2017, 07:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is no shortage of jobs that need to be done with regards to our infrastructure, if they finished a job early there would be something else waiting for them. And as to folks hanging about at sites, you probably see more working than you realize, but you notice the ones hanging about more because that's what fits the common understanding of those jobs.

But, regardless of all of that, I was referring to the engineering involved, the procurement, and raising of the funds, etc., etc. There are lots of things beyond just the actual labor that can hold a project like that up.

(04-04-2017, 06:35 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I think a big problem with infrastructure today is, isn't it all union work now? Unions were good in the past when they were needed, but after this long of fighting for more pay for less work, we've gotten to the point where projects just take far too long and cost far too much.

Look at that bridge in Atlanta that collapsed from the fire. 350ft of interstate needs to be replaced. It is going to take multiple months and they have set aside $10m to fix it.

Think about that. 350ft of interstate will take multiple months and cost $10m. Are they hand crafting this shit out of marble carried by foot from the mine?

Meanwhile in 55 BC, the Romans built a 1,000 ft bridge across a river that was 30ft deep to march 40,000 people and their supplies across it. It took them 10 days.

(04-04-2017, 09:09 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: This video went viral in our office, as I work for and engineering firm that specializes in infrastructure, and is a preferred consultant to the NC DOT.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2016/nov/15/japanese-workers-repair-road-48-hours-after-sinkhole-appears-video

But yes, it is quite amazing how bogged down any project with public funding is.

(04-04-2017, 09:21 PM)Benton Wrote: I'm guessing it was like a lot of roman projects at the time and completed with slave labor.

there's nothing wrong with unions, they just make sure workers get paid for their labor. We had a barge hit a bridge that wad due to be replaced. The state opted to fix the current bridge. Union labor got it done weeks ahead of schedule and on budget. But we just went with right to work so I dont think that will be as common. I dont know Georgia's laws, but sounds like the company is getting what they can out of the state.

(04-04-2017, 09:23 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That's a pretty impressive video.

- - - - -
I don't think this is actually technically public funding, in the example of the Atlanta interstate. The US Transportation Secretary released the $10m in funds and apparently the Federal Highway Administration has pledged more emergency repair funds. So it's not like Atlanta needs to pass a special tax or anything to pay for this.

Yet apparently their targeted goal date for repairs being finished  is June 15th.

(04-04-2017, 10:00 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That is like hyper-warp speed for any project in America.  I'll be genuinely shocked if they complete by that date.  And, it is public funding.  Where does the Federal Highway Administration get their money?  American tax dollars...

(04-04-2017, 09:23 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: .

l.





it .

I'm not saying unions are entirely bad, and they DO have a purpose, it's just that it's kind of slowly added up to start being a bad thing. I think it was GM or Ford was paying like 4.5 people to do 1 person's job with pensions and benefits and all that.

(04-05-2017, 12:53 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: It is a historical trend for peoples and nations who start with bad situations or handicaps and come together to overcome them to become great. The Vikings, Mongols, and initial Muslim Arabs all sprang from places with hard and unforgiving living conditions. The lessons they learned to survive in such places would later give them significant advantages over other peoples (seafaring with Vikings, horsemanship and bowmanship with the Mongols, logistics with Arabs, etc.). Rome had to overcome a plethora of neighboring city-states and existing powerful nations (Greece, Carthage, Egypt, etc.) before it could rise to power. The odds were very much against them (They literally had to become a naval power "overnight" to challenge Carthage). They developed strengths in organization, diplomacy and engineering to become great. Macedonia was a highland backwater of the Greek states. It would rise to power in part due to martial innovations of Alexander and his father, but also due to fraternity and an uncanny ability to accept, recruit and incorporate new cultures (some recently defeated) into their army.

It is the old adage, "That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger". But it is also the positive energy (synergy) of defeating a bad situation and developing confidence from that.

(04-04-2017, 07:41 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Such as? Because I look at construction and see machines sitting there with nobody working, or 1-2 guys working and 4 guys sitting around.

Always looks to me like they intentionally take their time so there's no/as little of a gap between jobs as possible. Turn a 1 week job into a 1 month job so you don't have your guys with no job to do for 3 weeks while you wait for your next job. Of course then they need paid for 4 weeks of work rather than 1 week.

(04-04-2017, 06:35 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Meanwhile in 55 BC, the Romans built a 1,000 ft bridge across a river that was 30ft deep to march 40,000 people and their supplies across it. It took them 10 days.

(04-05-2017, 03:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is a fascinating story.  Where did that happen?

BTW 40,000 troops X 10 days X $25 an hour= $240 million

(04-05-2017, 03:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is a fascinating story.  Where did that happen?

BTW 40,000 troops X 10 days X $25 an hour= $240 million

(04-05-2017, 06:11 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It was the first bridged crossing of the Rhine river. Previously people could only ever cross it in boats.


BTW, you've obviously never been in the military if you think they're making $25 an hour. A basic E-2 Private makes just under $1,800 a month in 2017. That's $21,600 a year.

Even if we assume you get weekends off in the field (lol) and work only 8 hours a day (LOL) 52 weeks a year, that is 2,080 hours a year, or roughly $10.38/hr. That's with the assumption you get all weekends off and only work 8 hours a day, which simply isn't anywhere close to reality.

Also back from modern military to the Romans again, know that they made nowhere near the amount a modern US military member does. Not to mention often their end payment was instead of money, they were given a piece of land in the Roman frontier territories to settle.

(04-05-2017, 07:15 PM)Benton Wrote: I think fred's point with the $25 is that's what it would cost for general labor in modern times to repair a modern bridge. And that's not including heavy equipment operators who make a little more or steel guys who make double that, easily in some places.

I don't think it would go over well if the governmen t started using enlisted soldiers to keep cost down on projects.