BLOOMBERG VIEW published two excellent op-eds late last month by Stephen Smith, a Brooklynite who writes about public transport in America. It's always been a mystery why public-transport projects in America cost so much more than comparable projects in other first-world countries, and Mr Smith set out to explain exactly what's going on.

Spain has long been famous for executing such projects quickly and cheaply; in 2003, the head of Madrid's Metro system wrote a list of best practices for following the country's example. That "don't-do list, unfortunately, reads like a winning US transit-construction bingo card," Mr Smith writes in the first of his two columns. He goes on to note that if New York could build subways at the same costs as Paris or Tokyo, it could finish the entire Second Avenue Subway project (pictured)—the most expensive subway in the world—for the cost of the single station it's currently building at the World Trade Centre site.

Here are some of the problems Mr Smith identifies:

Conflicts of interest, with "consultants who consult with consultants and advisers who advise advisers."

A common-law legal system with lots of legal review that slows down infrastructure projects

Incredibly strict anti-corruption rules that do more harm than good

Not enough emphasis on speed of construction, leading to long projects and escalating costs

There's even more in Mr Smith's second piece, which focuses on labour rules. Leaning on the research of Vukan Vuchic, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Mr Smith suggests that American ticket-taking systems—in which conductors go from car to car and passenger to passenger—are the main obstacle to more frequent and cheaper commuter rail service. Turnstiles and spot-check systems would replace conductors. But, Mr Smith adds, "organised labour is only one obstacle to reform" (note all the other ones above)—and it's not clear that management and the government officials who are in charge of American commuter rail networks really want change. And ideally, automation can be made to work for everyone: lower costs can mean more frequent service, which is more convenient for commuters and can increase demand. For labour, five one-crew trains is better than one train with four crew.

It's great to see these kinds of detailed arguments about America's infrastructure problems from a generalist media outlet like Bloomberg View. More, please.