Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back by Marc J. Dunkelman
Progressivism is torn between individual autonomy and the desire for big government solutions. The current result is massively expensive projects that can be easily be derailed by the simplest thing.
Big Projects reached their zenith during the age of Robert Moses. He had the wherewithal and the budget to do just about anything. He rammed freeways through residential neighborhoods with little regard to who lived there or what they needed. He decided parkways should be for cars and not buses. He built beaches and other amenities with particular people in mind. He got things done. At first, people were happy with the benefits they saw from his megaprojects. The people complaining were seen to be in the way of progress. Eventually his plans got in the way with those in power. This led to greater restrictions on what could be done.
Today things of turned far in the other way. Environmental impact statements require development to explore various different negative impacts of a project. These stretch much beyond the ecological environment to different peoples and groups. Projects are looked at through an equity lens to ensure that some groups are not disproportionately hurt. There are many veto points in the process. There are also many opportunities to file lawsuits to halt a project. Projects often balloon in cost in order to respond to all these complaints. Perversely, wealthy people with deep pockets are most able to stop projects. You can see in Seattle where there are freeway lids over the rich suburbs, but not in the dense city where they would be most useful. The process also favors the status quo. An existing project that harms many people, but benefits a few is hard to change. Even if the benefits would greatly outnumber the harms it is difficult to make changes due to few people that would be impacted by the changes.
The book explores the conflicting Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian impulses. There is a desire for small government to let people do what they want. There is also the desire for big government to help rid society of its ills. The progressive movement has many of both combined together. They want government to protect individual rights and liberties. They also want government ro provide a safety net and implement programs to help people and to provide the needed infrastructure needed. Conservatives, too, have a mixture of both ideals. These two conflicts are what has lead to massive expenses but little benefit. As an example, we want to help the homeless, but give them full autonomy to live how they like. This results in lots of money spent, but little benefit. California would like high speed rail, but has produced almost nothing with all the time and money spent. China was able to build a great network of high speed rail in the same time. California has been able to maintain and expand the existing freeways despite the environmental degradation caused. As a society, we expect all big organizations and government to be "perfect". Any negative caused is grounds for lawsuits. Alas, this risk aversion has also prevented much good from occuring.