I have heard a lot about the sluggish and strange spending on the wind of taxpayer money in Canada (https://www.anekdot.ru/id/1237831/) Especially impressed by the history of road construction. There are two middle-sized towns near Toronto: Kitchener and Guelph. Between them is a two-band regional road length of 18 kilometers. The road had long needed to be expanded and in 1989 (32 years ago) the government decided to build a new four-lane route parallel to the existing one. Over the past 32 years, about $120 million has been spent on 18 kilometers of the track. For comparison, the 251 km long four-band road in Crimea was built in 4 years and cost 166 billion rubles (about $10 million per kilometer). In Canada it gets cheaper – less than 7 million Canadian dollars per kilometer. But the problem is that in Canada the construction has not actually started yet. The money of taxpayers was first spent on the development of the project, then several years later on the development of a new project (the norms have changed), then on the new development, on the purchase of land, on the cleaning of the road from trees and shrubs every few years (they, the infestation, grow again)... Money continues to be regularly allocated, the road is about to be built... But the road is still there, the road exists only on paper.

P.S A couple of years ago, I told our beer financier about the Canadian track as an example of inefficiency and unprofessionalism. And this is what I heard in my response (in my authorized translation):
- Here you are a smart man, a scientist, and in budget affairs you need not a mind, but trick and years of experience, gained by sitting in the same chair of the same ass - in other words, trickiness. Any financier who makes budgets should be a trickster and have at least a couple of dozen such project tricks. This project is initially doomed to a long failure, because it has the ideal combination for the budget: it is necessary for society to be approved for financing with the allocation of funds to the budget, but not to live without it would be impossible - it means that its financing can be easily cut in case of budget cuts or redistribution in it in case of acute need. It should not be allocated too much, so as not to attract the attention of society and politicians, but also not too little, so that its reduction could shut down an unexpectedly emerging small budget hole from among those that regularly unexpectedly arise, such as forest fires, floods, droughts, epidemics... and the duration should be about 5 years - a little more than one term of government in power - so that politicians do not have the temptation to start and finish it in one term, earning political points. In other words, the project in the budget was sitting, sitting and going to sit, they want to perform it, but, as they say in Mexico, a mania. The main thing is not to bring the funding before the start of real construction, so that in case of suspension, journalists do not have the opportunity to photograph rotten stalls or crushed concrete with germinating bushes through it. And start it and successfully complete it at the moment when it is necessary to silence the growing rush of popular discontent such as rising unemployment in the medium term and when the government will remain in power for at least two terms: everyone will earn the premium, and the country will also be good.

Now everywhere is coveted, unemployment seems to grow - there is a chance on the road!