Utopia, you are standing in it!

The literature on cost overruns for infrastructure projects is rich, much more so than that for absolute costs. The best-known name in this literature is Bent Flyvbjerg, who in the early 2000s collated a number of datasets from the 1980s and 90s to produce a large enough N for analysis, demonstrating consistent, large cost overruns, especially for urban rail. Subsequently, he’s written papers on the topic, focusing on underestimation and on how agencies can prospectively estimate costs better and give accurate numbers to the public for approval. This parallels an internal trend in the US, where Don Pickrell identified cost overruns in 1990 already, using 1980s data; Pickrell’s dataset was among those analyzed by Flyvbjerg, and subsequent to Pickrell’s paper, American cost overruns decreased to an average of zero for light rail lines.

But a fundamental question remains: are cost overruns really a matter of underestimation, or a true…

Let me preface this post by saying I have nothing against Bent Flyvbjerg or his research. My problem is purely with how it’s used in the public media, and frequently even in other academic studies, which assume overruns take place even when they do not.

Stephen Smith sent me a link to an article in The Economist complaining about cost overruns on the California HSR Central Valley segment. The article gets its numbers wrong – for one, the original cost estimate for Merced-Bakersfield was never $6.8 billion, but instead was $7.2 billion in 2006 dollars and $8 billion in YOE dollars, according to CARRD, and as a result it portrays a 25% overrun as a 100% overrun. But the interest is not the wrong numbers, but the invocation of Flyvbjerg again.

Nowhere does the article say anything about actual construction costs – it talks about overruns, but doesn’t…

John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love,” “Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) directs Colin Firth, Matthew Macfadyen, Kelly MacDonald, Penelope Wilton, Johnny Flynn and Jason Isaacs in this story of a spy game played with a corpse meant to fool Gerry into thinking the Allies were about to invade…Greece.

It’s true, one of the great yarns of spycraft during WWII, and it comes to Netflix May 6.

Looks cracking, wot wot?

Richard I (September 8, 1157 – April 6, 1199) was King of England from 1189 until his death in 1199. He also ruled as Duke of Normandy, Aquitaine and Gascony, Lord of Cyprus, and Count of Poitiers, Anjou, Maine, and Nantes, and was overlord of Brittany at various times during the same period.

Richard was born, probably at Beaumont Palace, in Oxford, England, son of King Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine. As a younger son of King Henry II, he was not expected to ascend the throne.

Henry II and Eleanor’s eldest son William IX, Count of Poitiers, died before Richard’s birth. He was a younger brother of Henry the Young King and Matilda, Duchess of Saxony. He was also an elder brother of Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany; Queen Eleanor of Castile; Queen Joan of Sicily; and John, Count of Mortain, who succeeded him as king.

I’m not a fan of the government-distorted health system in the United States.

Various laws and programs from Washington have created a massive problem with third-party payer, which makes America’s system very expensive and inefficient.

But it’s possible to have a system that is even worse. Americans can look across the ocean at the United Kingdom’s National Health Service.

Our British friends are burdened with something akin to “Medicare for All.”

But it’s even worse because doctors and nurses are directly employed by government, which means they have been turned into government bureaucrats.

And government bureaucrats generally don’t have a track record of good performance. That seems to apply to health bureaucrats, as captured by this Alys Denby column for CapX.

Numbers are no way to express a human tragedy, but those in the Ockenden Report into maternity services at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital…

Fracking: note the deep shaft
Can they get over the paralysis induced by their climate obsessions and get on with what the US has done successfully for years, or are they just looking for another report to hide behind? The days of thinking gas could always be reliably imported at moderate cost are over.
– – –
Senior Tories are calling for an end to the ban on shale gas extraction to help secure energy supplies, says BBC News.

The government has ordered a new report on the impact of fracking, days ahead of publishing its energy supply plan.

Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng has given the British Geological Survey (BGS) three months to assess any changes to the science around the controversial practice.

Fracking was halted in the UK in 2019 amid opposition from green groups and local concerns over earth tremors.

Among the mantras that feature in wind industry propaganda is the line about Australians being all in favour of renewable energy.

That may well be.

However, the wind cult are having a hard time convincing the thousands of South Australians who are often left sitting freezing or boiling in the dark – whenever wind power output collapses on a routine, total and totally unpredictable basis – that its fleet of whirling wonders represents any kind of future, at all.

And now it seems that, despite the ‘love’ they are purported to have professed to pollsters, the vast majority of Australians are not prepared to pay one red cent more for that warm fuzzy feeling that is said to come from knowing that your fridge, air-conditioner and giant flatscreen TV is being run on either sunshine or breezes.

Newspoll: 45 per cent won’t pay more for energy renewables
The Australian
David…