Infrastructure Costs Are a Political and Engineering Problem
A 2024 post on how Madrid built its metro cheaply resurfaced and drew a long thread about why US infrastructure costs so much. The Madrid case is specific: the city used well-paid in-house engineers to lead the project instead of layering external consultants at every stage. The contrast with how New York or San Francisco procures infrastructure projects is stark and well-documented.
The thread converged on two explanations: US construction wages are two to three times higher than Madrid's, and US projects are structurally dependent on consultant layers that each add margin and coordination overhead. Commenters noted that the consultant model also diffuses accountability, nobody owns the outcome.
This matters beyond just transit policy. The same structural problem shows up in software procurement, healthcare IT, and any large government contract. The Madrid story is really a story about what happens when you keep expertise in-house and give it authority.
So what?
For founders selling to government or large enterprises, the Madrid thread is a useful frame: your biggest competitor isn't another vendor, it's the entrenched consultant relationship that nobody wants to unwind. If you're building internal tooling or developer productivity products, the argument that in-house expertise beats layered outsourcing is now backed by a very concrete infrastructure case study you can point to.