all 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah. Good luck. With the current government in charge, every company involved will be riddled with nepotism, corruption or other scandals. Which the current government will of course excuse, benefit from bribes with or make way for because their political alignments are towards hurting people.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Although not convinced any such bridge is an efficient use of resources, I'm glad the plan includes railway as well as road.

  • source
  • 21 comments in c/world@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 55 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This video is extremely relevant and points to reasons his is impossible, and the Italian government being currently run by an actual Nazis bodes poorly to any megaproject https://youtu.be/ei-bG4XfB4s

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I talked to my italian colleague and ge just laughed, saying that this has been the standard nonsense political campaign promise in Italy since forever. Its so dumb it hurts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    He's right Berlusconi promised to make this bridge for his whole political life, he spent billions of public money to research for possibilities on how to make the bridge and all expert said it would be an ecological and humanitarian disaster that won't last if made. The most optimistic engineer proposed to make a tunnel like the one in the English channel

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I'm Italian.

    The governments have been talking about it since the 90s. They OK'd 15 billions but will likely cost the double and much of it will be wasted in bureaucracy and corruption. Nonetheless this money will not be spent solely on the bridge, but also to enhance the entire Sicilian railway network.

    Also Sicily has 5 millions of inhabitants, it's a lot of people, served only by slow and downsized boats. It takes hours to go through the strait. Furthermore it's great both for the people and for the goods to be able to reach Berlin from Palermo by train.

    I don't know whether this is the right choice and whether Italy has enough resources to accomplish that, but if it works out I think it's a great opportunity.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    With three car lanes in each direction flanked by a double-track railway, the bridge would have the capacity to carry 6,000 cars an hour and 200 trains a day

    based

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Bridge could count toward NATO spending target

    The project could provide a boost to Italy’s commitment to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP targeted by NATO, as the government has indicated it would classify the bridge as defense-related, helping it to meet a 1.5% security component. Italy argues that the bridge would form a strategic corridor for rapid troop movements and equipment deployment to NATO’s southern flanks, qualifying it as a “security-enhancing infrastructure.”

    A group of more than 600 professors and researchers signed a letter earlier this summer opposing the military classification, noting that such a move would require additional assessments to see if it could withstand military use.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • Honestly if it works economically, I think this kind of infrastructure project should at least partially count towards NATO targets. Not all of war is moving troops, some of it is logistics, keeping your citizenry relatively happy, and an accumulated history of economic investment. If they can manage to get a lot of that money into workers' hands, that alone is a huge benefit when combined with the transferrable skills you're reinforcing in your workforce.

    Not that we should have to justify infrastructure as military expenses. But I do think it kinda works.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    This was the reason for the "increased spending" targets, to include basic infrastructure.

    As for withstand military use, it can either take the weight or it can't. However there is a can it take a missile factor. But honestly that would be there anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • megaprojects autism will eat good tonight

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Meanwhile trump blows $200 million in tax payers’ money for a fucking golden ballroom at the WH. “Just more ways to spend my money.”

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It isn't. You apparently don't know what that phrase means. It is related because the discussion about how tax money is being allocated for infrastructure projects. In one case, to benefit the people of the country's commerce and the other case, money being wasted on tasteless "upgrades."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    So every public infrastructure project in every country is cause for a reminder of the dumbassery going on here? Both projects are coming out of taxpayer money, and that's where the similarity ends and the non sequitur-ness begins. As you say, one is actually being used for something useful.

    If you want to talk about wasted money, how about that bridge in India with a 90° turn? At least that one is, you know, a bridge.

  • source
  • parent