Costly Infrastructure Projects: Engineering Problems vs. “Phone Call Problems

Costly Infrastructure Projects: Engineering Problems vs. “Phone Call Problems”
SLUG: engineering-problems-phone-call-problems-infrastructure
EXCERPT: An analysis from Strong Towns highlights how complex infrastructure projects often incur massive costs by treating human coordination issues as technical engineering challenges.
CATEGORY: urban-planning
TAGS: infrastructure, urban planning, project management, public transport, coordination, cost overruns
SEO_TITLE: Infrastructure Costs: When “Phone Calls” Trump Engineering – London Urbanism Desk
SEO_DESCRIPTION: Explore how treating human coordination issues as engineering problems drives up costs in major infrastructure projects, with examples relevant to urban planning.
MEDIA_QUERY: Grand Central Terminal LIRR expansion caverns, New York
IMAGE_ALT: Photograph of the cavernous tunnels excavated beneath Grand Central Terminal for the Long Island Rail Road expansion.

Infrastructure projects worldwide frequently face significant cost overruns and lengthy delays. A recent analysis by Strong Towns suggests a common, yet often unacknowledged, reason: the misclassification of problems. The distinction lies between genuine “engineering problems” and what are termed “phone call problems”—issues rooted in human coordination, inter-agency cooperation, and stakeholder negotiation.

The analysis argues that when infrastructure projects encounter obstacles related to land rights, utility relocation, inter-agency agreements, or reluctant landowners, these are fundamentally human problems requiring negotiation and political will. However, these are often treated as technical engineering challenges, leading to vastly more expensive and complex engineering solutions to avoid direct human engagement.

Engineering Problems vs. Phone Call Problems

An engineering problem is defined as a challenge that genuinely requires engineering expertise to overcome. Examples include navigating difficult terrain, such as crossing a river or unstable soil. Engineers are adept at finding solutions to these physical constraints.

In contrast, “phone call problems” are those that appear to be technical but are actually rooted in human interactions. These can include issues like another agency controlling essential right-of-way, the need to move utility lines, a private company’s lack of cooperation, a municipality’s bureaucratic hurdles, or a landowner’s reluctance to sell property. These problems are about incentives, authority, and human will, and are best solved through human-centred solutions like negotiation and compromise.

The tendency, according to the Strong Towns analysis, is for infrastructure projects, which are typically managed as engineering endeavours, to default to treating these human problems as engineering ones. This approach consistently leads to predictable and exorbitant costs.

A Case Study: New York’s Grand Central Expansion

The expansion of rail services into Grand Central Terminal in New York City serves as a prime example. The Metro-North Railroad, a commuter rail service with roughly a quarter-million daily riders, operates out of Grand Central, a station boasting 44 platform tracks – the most of any station globally.

In the 1980s, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) constructed a new two-level tunnel under the East River. The upper level was intended for the subway, while the lower level was designed to accommodate Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) trains, aiming to connect them to the Grand Central area, a significant office district. Although the subway opened in 1989, serious work on the LIRR’s use of the lower tunnel didn’t commence until the early 2000s.

A major hurdle arose when Metro-North stated it could not accommodate the additional LIRR trains within its existing 44 tracks. The analysis points out that this assertion is questionable, given that London’s Liverpool Street Station handles more trains daily on fewer than half the number of platform tracks.

Instead of pursuing a negotiation or coordination solution, the problem was treated as an engineering challenge. Metro-North laid out its requirements, and the project had to be designed to fit within those constraints. The engineering solution involved excavating an enormous cavern deep beneath the existing station, creating eight additional tracks that were entirely disconnected from the others. This monumental engineering feat reportedly cost approximately $12 billion and took 15 years to complete, despite the tunnel structure having been in place since the 1980s.

Pattern of Misclassified Problems

This situation is not isolated. Similar issues have been discussed regarding San Jose Diridon station, where an unwillingness to share infrastructure between Caltrain and a planned high-speed rail service is leading to discussions of a billion-dollar elevated structure. At Los Angeles Union Station, tunnelling into the station is being considered over utilizing its existing, and by global standards, under-utilised capacity and approaches. The driving force behind the proposed tunnel is the difficulty in reaching agreements with agencies and operators controlling access to the current infrastructure. This is presented as an engineering solution to a coordination problem at a significant financial cost.

Toronto’s Union Station has also seen discussions where planned high-speed services might need to be rerouted because the station is perceived as full, a claim the analysis disputes. Again, the underlying issue is the difficulty in reaching agreements with existing operators.

These are all identified as “phone call problems.” While the negotiations might be complex and involve genuine competing interests, the solution lies in improved negotiation, higher-level political intervention, or financial incentives, not in constructing multi-billion-dollar structures to circumvent the conversation.

Structural Issues in Project Management

The pattern of treating human problems as engineering ones is not accidental but reflects structural issues in how infrastructure projects are organised and evaluated. When an engineering obstacle arises, there is a well-established professional framework for response, involving assessment, option development, cost modelling, and recommendation.

However, when human obstacles emerge, this framework falters. Negotiation, especially when requiring high-level political action, is often not a standard part of the project management toolkit. Escalating to senior political leadership requires admitting a political problem, something project managers may be reluctant to do. Furthermore, paying a private entity to move utilities or grant access might be seen as rewarding obstruction. Consequently, the human problem is often quietly reclassified as a technical constraint, and engineers are tasked with finding a way around it.

This reclassification is rarely explicit. No official memo will state, “We have decided to spend four billion dollars to avoid a difficult conversation.” Instead, it occurs incrementally through a series of individually justifiable decisions that collectively add cost and complexity, ultimately transforming the project from its original conception.

The Need for Political Seniority and Authority

Addressing a problem as a “phone call problem” does not imply it is easy. It signifies that it demands a different kind of effort, one that typically involves political seniority and authority. Many coordination failures persist because no single individual with sufficient authority over all involved parties has taken ownership of the problem.

When a leader with genuine influence—such as a premier, minister, or mayor—prioritises and addresses these issues, problems that have festered for years can sometimes be resolved in days or hours. The history of successful large-scale infrastructure projects is frequently a narrative of a decisive leader stepping in to facilitate agreement and drive progress.

Key facts

This distinction between engineering and “phone call” problems has significant implications for urban planning and infrastructure development. It suggests a need for greater emphasis on negotiation skills, inter-agency cooperation frameworks, and the empowerment of political leaders to resolve complex coordination issues. By more accurately identifying and addressing the root causes of project challenges, cities can potentially avoid billions in unnecessary expenditure and deliver essential infrastructure more efficiently.

Source: Strong Towns – Engineering Problems and Phone Call Problems (https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2026-6-2-engineering-problems-and-phone-call-problems)