[drewbeck]

In your mind how many man years of savings do you think is worth one human life? Let's say we can save half the time on a big project but periodically one random person is killed. Worth it?

I'm being glib here and/but/also we need to be talking about this directly. There's a spectrum of possible responses to the question and we need a language to discuss risk intelligently.

[ysavir]

I think their point is that we can accomplish all the safety needs while only increasing costs and time so much, and that some portion (maybe big, maybe small) of that time is needless bureaucracy. They aren't advocating for more risk.

[ImPostingOnHN]

how?

which specific federal safety regulations should we eliminate that seem to blocking any significant progress?

[ysavir]

I think you're still missing the point. The goal isn't to eliminate any safety regulations. Those are needed and should be kept.

What's being addressed is the situation where various parties in politics, construction, or otherwise related in any way, looking at the project and saying "how can I get my hands on some of that money?". We're looking at all the lobbying that goes into for and against decisions, and how they stall process without any consideration of its purpose.

We're looking at every opportunity for a person or party to distract from the project for their own gain. If those can be removed or mitigated, we could potentially see faster and cheaper projects.

[ImPostingOnHN]

the people saying "how can I get my hands on more money" are usually (NB: not ALWAYS) the same ones seeking to eliminate regulations so that they can get their hands on more money

the regulations exist because everyone else thought that more safety was more important than those people getting richer

if you're talking about other regulations that "stall process", which ones specifically?