If only I thought of that before you wrote this comment. Then several comments up I'd have written this: "No other country is even in the same ballpark - this includes wealthy countries (Spain, Singapore, Hong Kong, Italy) with plenty of safety rules. Delhi's construction costs are typical, they are not exceptionally low."
I'm not comparing the US solely to third world countries. I'm comparing the US to every other country in the world.
You pretty clearly didn't read the links, or even this comment thread.
I agree that safety regulations might raise costs, but they demonstrably do not raise costs to US levels. If they did, then trains in Spain would cost the same as trains in the US. In fact, trains in Spain cost about the same as trains in India.
Edit: It would not work in Germany, because it would be hard to decide whether the ever increasing fire-regulations are indeed batshit-crazy and thus a sign of a failing capabiltiy to organize, or just a security regulation raising costs. In a way they are both.
The links you provided don't do that calculation properly, as far as I saw. And I did have a look at them and read the comment thread here, it is useless to attack me on that grounds. Doing so only disqualifies you.
You explicitly brought up Germany, so how do you plan to wave that one away?
In any case, none of these are remotely in the same league as the US's $1,300M/km (to choose one of the cheaper projects).
If you want to explain why you think the calculations are wrong, do it. So far you've just ignored them.
It it even worth arguing that? I'm saying "specific things can drive up costs, safety regulations for example". If I understand you right, you were saying "specific things drive up costs, I call it social technology". Why does my position even conflict with your theory? That fits together, just view those regulations as a factor in your social technology model. The sole position to give up would be "safety regulations don't drive up costs at all", which is ridiculous anyway, thus not a hard loss.
I was disputing the fact that this played a major role by citing Spain, Germany, Hong Kong, etc.
My specific claim is that we do not need to choose between Spanish/German/Singaporean levels of worker safety and not getting big projects done. We can have both.
There can be a loss in the ability of a society to organize stuff. Berlin is incapable to finish an airport, and a big reasons are batshit-crazy fire protection regulations which changed multiple times over the duration of the project (plus a bit of corruption, but in fact probably not the reason for the failure). In Stuttgart they are trying to construct a train station and are incapable to finish it with their budget and don't even have an idea why.
But: At least in Berlin, regulations are part of the problem. Safety regulations are also regulations. It is totally logical that costs for a project do rise when taking the proper safety measures. One can argue where the balance should be, but just saying "safety regulations are not a problem" when comparing the USA and a third-world country is pretty removed from reality.