News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

U.S. 301 Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge

Started by cpzilliacus, December 20, 2012, 10:08:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Beltway on November 22, 2019, 04:28:01 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 22, 2019, 01:20:27 PM
For what it's worth, the US's ability to move around and handle a battle has changed a lot from 1899 and even from 1946. 
Wanna trap some ships now?  There's a whole lotta fighter jets out there that'll take care of the initiator within minutes.
How about a cargo ship getting commandeered by foreign powers and rammed into one of the main towers, as in the old Sunshine Skyway Bridge (which of course was accidental in that case)?

Torpedoes, or ballistic missiles, launched by submarine? 

Might as well never build a bridge anywhere if we're gonna bring up every hypothetical scenerio.

If a cargo ship was commandeered, there's probably gonna be sufficient time before that ship was near a bridge unless they managed to secretly take it over just before the bridge.


Beltway

Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 22, 2019, 05:07:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 22, 2019, 04:28:01 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 22, 2019, 01:20:27 PM
For what it's worth, the US's ability to move around and handle a battle has changed a lot from 1899 and even from 1946. 
Wanna trap some ships now?  There's a whole lotta fighter jets out there that'll take care of the initiator within minutes.
How about a cargo ship getting commandeered by foreign powers and rammed into one of the main towers, as in the old Sunshine Skyway Bridge (which of course was accidental in that case)?
Torpedoes, or ballistic missiles, launched by submarine? 
Might as well never build a bridge anywhere if we're gonna bring up every hypothetical scenerio.
If a cargo ship was commandeered, there's probably gonna be sufficient time before that ship was near a bridge unless they managed to secretly take it over just before the bridge.
21st Century threats.

The cargo ship example assumes that nobody suspects it is not under normal harbor pilot control until it crashes into the bridge tower.

The outcome would be the bottling up of every Navy ship in the main east coast naval base and shipyards, plus the civil marine terminals.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

cl94

#127
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 22, 2019, 05:07:16 PM
Might as well never build a bridge anywhere if we're gonna bring up every hypothetical scenerio.

Maybe he was doing what he implied HRTPO was doing here:-D

(kidding, kidding, but it was quite the outlandish response given that it hasn't happened).

But back on topic...

Quote from: Duke87 on November 22, 2019, 11:43:40 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 22, 2019, 11:02:04 AM
Quote from: skluth on June 06, 2018, 12:13:36 PMThe Navy doesn't allow any bridges in Hampton Roads because a bridge can be bombed which would trap the fleet in Norfolk and prevent access to the Norfolk Navy Yard in Portsmouth. No bridges can be built between the Navy Yard, the shipyard in Newport News, and the Atlantic. http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Bridge_Tunnels_VA.html

Under what authority? Where's the relevant statute that would prohibit the state from building a bridge?

Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the General Bridge Act of 1946, and... a few other miscellaneous laws and amendments thereto.

The short if it is that in order to build a crossing of any navigable waterway, you need a permit from the US Coast Guard.

As part of the permitting process, they have the authority to set vertical clearance requirements for said structures, which by proxy means they can if they deem fit require that the crossing be a tunnel.


There's quite a bit of precedent for the Coast Guard setting high vertical clearance requirements or limiting traffic across a crossing in order to ensure a certain level of water movements are possible. Amtrak and commuter rail operators are constrained by this in a few places, most notably Connecticut.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

cpzilliacus

WTOP Radio: Maryland approves narrower Nice Bridge replacement option

QuoteThe new Nice-Middleton Bridge between Maryland and Virginia will be significantly slimmed down from originally promised plans.

QuoteThe Maryland Transportation Authority Board voted Thursday to approve a $463 million construction contract for a new U.S. 301 bridge that will have two lanes in each direction for car traffic, but little else.

QuoteVirginia is contributing $13 million to the project for the pieces on the Virginia side of the river.

QuoteThe current 1.7-mile bridge that opened in 1940 is only one lane each way. It cost $5 million to build over nearly three years.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Beltway

Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 22, 2019, 10:16:22 PM
WTOP Radio: Maryland approves narrower Nice Bridge replacement option
QuoteThe new Nice-Middleton Bridge between Maryland and Virginia will be significantly slimmed down from originally promised plans.
QuoteThe Maryland Transportation Authority Board voted Thursday to approve a $463 million construction contract for a new U.S. 301 bridge that will have two lanes in each direction for car traffic, but little else.
Again, far below the engineer's estimate of $750 million.

Why not revise the design and re-award, or add a work order to the contract to include the design with the 10-foot right shoulders?
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Alps

Quote from: Beltway on November 22, 2019, 11:25:21 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 22, 2019, 10:16:22 PM
WTOP Radio: Maryland approves narrower Nice Bridge replacement option
QuoteThe new Nice-Middleton Bridge between Maryland and Virginia will be significantly slimmed down from originally promised plans.
QuoteThe Maryland Transportation Authority Board voted Thursday to approve a $463 million construction contract for a new U.S. 301 bridge that will have two lanes in each direction for car traffic, but little else.
Again, far below the engineer's estimate of $750 million.

Why not revise the design and re-award, or add a work order to the contract to include the design with the 10-foot right shoulders?
If this is a construction contract, they're not going back to design.

Beltway

#131
Quote from: Alps on November 23, 2019, 01:14:14 AM
Quote from: Beltway on November 22, 2019, 11:25:21 PM
QuoteThe Maryland Transportation Authority Board voted Thursday to approve a $463 million construction contract for a new U.S. 301 bridge that will have two lanes in each direction for car traffic, but little else.
Again, far below the engineer's estimate of $750 million.
Why not revise the design and re-award, or add a work order to the contract to include the design with the 10-foot right shoulders?
If this is a construction contract, they're not going back to design.
The reports said it was design-build.  I still have the question about whether it was bid competitively or was a sole-source contract.

The ideal time to revise the design would have been before the award, then to rebid.

A work order is a possibility but it would be a big one. 

The VA-648 overpass and connecting roadway was a work order added to the I-95 contract under construction for 5 miles of Interstate highway plus the VA-40 interchange and bypass.  The awarded design had the easterly service road dead-ending 3 miles south of where it connected to VA-40.  A work order was issued to revise the design and add almost a mile of roadway plus the overpass bridge, to connect the easterly service road to US-301 on the west side of I-95.  Source:  I was a construction inspector on the project.

Granted a Nice Bridge work order would be far larger than that one, probably looking at $100 million or more.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Beltway

The news release did mention a bid option (not selected) for a bicycle/pedestrian path --
https://mdta.maryland.gov/Capital_Projects/NewNiceBridgeProject/Home

As part of the procurement process, MDTA requested a bid option to add a separated bicycle/pedestrian path to the new structure.  The proposal from SCM would cost an additional $64 million for a separated path with limited daily use.  After a thorough discussion and analysis, as well as public testimony, the board voted instead to move forward with a project to improve safety and capacity for thousands along the I-95 corridor.

To expand practical access, the new Nice/Middleton Bridge will include several safety enhancements for bicyclists, including bicycle-friendly roadway joints and intelligent transportation systems tools such as lighting and signage.

. . . . . . . .

Not a good idea to allow bikes to use the bridge with only a 2-foot shoulder, somebody is going to have to get shoveled up.

Just 3 years ago they allocated $756 million to construct the project --
https://mdta.maryland.gov/blog-category/mdta-news-releases/governor-larry-hogan-announces-765-million-new-harry-w-nice-memorial-bridge
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

froggie

Some of the arguments against a separate bike/ped path on the Nice Bridge were also used against building one on the new Wilson Bridge.  Granted, the Wilson Bridge is in a major metropolitan area and there was nearby bike infrastructure on at least one side.  That said, both Prince George County and even Charles County to a degree have (separately) discussed improving bike accommodations along the 301 corridor.  A path on the Nice Bridge would have greatly improved that and increased the opportunity for bike tourism (yes, it does exist).  A path also would have given pedestrians an opportunity that doesn't exist now.  Length of the bridge is inmaterial here...the Wilson Bridge path is not much shorter than a Nice Bridge path would be and is heavily used by pedestrians.

As a bicyclist, I would have accepted 10ft shoulders, though I'm in a minority of bicyclists who would do that.  2ft, as Scott noted, is insane.  Nevermind that there are a whole host of safety reasons unrelated to bicycling that would warrant a 10ft shoulder here.  This is an obscenely short-sighted decision on the part of Maryland.

cl94

Quote from: froggie on November 23, 2019, 12:30:03 PM
Some of the arguments against a separate bike/ped path on the Nice Bridge were also used against building one on the new Wilson Bridge.  Granted, the Wilson Bridge is in a major metropolitan area and there was nearby bike infrastructure on at least one side.  That said, both Prince George County and even Charles County to a degree have (separately) discussed improving bike accommodations along the 301 corridor.  A path on the Nice Bridge would have greatly improved that and increased the opportunity for bike tourism (yes, it does exist).  A path also would have given pedestrians an opportunity that doesn't exist now.  Length of the bridge is inmaterial here...the Wilson Bridge path is not much shorter than a Nice Bridge path would be and is heavily used by pedestrians.

When it comes to these things, "if you build it, they will come". I could definitely see people biking or jogging across it. Put a parking lot at either end and it works. It would still be little more than half the length of the Tappan Zee/Mario Cuomo Bridge path they're opening next year.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Beltway

Quote from: froggie on November 23, 2019, 12:30:03 PM
As a bicyclist, I would have accepted 10ft shoulders, though I'm in a minority of bicyclists who would do that.  2ft, as Scott noted, is insane.  Nevermind that there are a whole host of safety reasons unrelated to bicycling that would warrant a 10ft shoulder here.  This is an obscenely short-sighted decision on the part of Maryland.
Especially give the fact that the current economic state of the heavy construction industry provided such a low bid, $463 million as opposed the official estimate of $756 million in Nov. 2016.

So they could have repackaged, re-bid, work ordered, whatever the best method as they deem appropriate, and included the $64 million for the separated bicycle/pedestrian path, and the $100 million or whatever to add full shoulders to the bridge, and still have been far below the 2016 estimate.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

#136
The Jordan Bridge linking Chesapeake / Portsmouth in Hampton Roads was replaced about a decade with a 1.2 mile long 2-lane high-rise bridge and includes a multi-use trail separated from the roadway. The city also constructed a new Elizabeth River park on the eastern end, and since then the bridge has had pretty decent usage as far as pedestrians / bicycles are concerned. A simple street view from April 2019 imagery shows at least 7 people crossing the bridge.

The US-17 Veterans Bridge crossing the Elizabeth River that was constructed a few years back as apart of the Dominion Blvd project is also a 1.2 mile long 4-lane high-rise bridge and includes a multi-use trail separated from the roadway on the southbound span. Contrary to the Jordan Bridge though, I haven't seen as much activity on this bridge, but you do see people utilize it occasionally. There's a residential area on the northern end and the Cedar Rd retail corridor on the southern end, so there's definitely potential.

Both of these bridges also include shoulders, 8 foot on the Jordan Bridge and 10 foot on the Veterans Bridge, the latter being a freeway facility.

sprjus4

Quote from: Beltway on November 23, 2019, 05:29:01 AM
Not a good idea to allow bikes to use the bridge with only a 2-foot shoulder, somebody is going to have to get shoveled up.
With no shoulder, you might have to shovel some cars up to if someone breaks down in the wrong place on the travel lane (the only place to break down).

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on November 23, 2019, 01:39:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 23, 2019, 05:29:01 AM
Not a good idea to allow bikes to use the bridge with only a 2-foot shoulder, somebody is going to have to get shoveled up.
With no shoulder, you might have to shovel some cars up to if someone breaks down in the wrong place on the travel lane (the only place to break down).
Wreckers and heavy wreckers would be utilized to remove wrecked cars and trucks from the bridge.

The police and fire department units would need to bring some body bags as well.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Beltway on November 23, 2019, 05:08:40 AM
The ideal time to revise the design would have been before the award, then to rebid.

Ludicrous.  That's like a table getting dealt cards face up in a poker hand, then telling everyone to bet.

You can't go back to rebid just because the bids are lower than expected, then add stuff to the package and rebid the entire package.  The bridge had now been engineered and designed based on public comment, in which it was decided to eliminate that bike/ped walkway. Significantly changing the design will also mean to hell with the public comments, change many other aspects of the bridge, and the resulting price tag of the bridge.

Everyone has also seen everyone else's cards.  In the next round of bidding, the pricing for every line item can vary greatly, and there's certainly no guarantee bids will be even close to the already lowest-bid plus $46 million or so.  Not to mention - the same companies may not even bother bidding.  It takes companies a wealth of time and money to bid.  The higher bidders probably won't even bother bidding again, so now you have fewer companies bidding, and when there's fewer players at the plate, it's almost guaranteed bids will come in higher than before.

Beltway

#140
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 23, 2019, 04:10:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 23, 2019, 05:08:40 AM
The ideal time to revise the design would have been before the award, then to rebid.
Ludicrous.  That's like a table getting dealt cards face up in a poker hand, then telling everyone to bet.
You can't go back to rebid just because the bids are lower than expected, then add stuff to the package and rebid the entire package. 
Actually you can, and the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) has done so in the past.

Their Key Bridge was originally planned as a tunnel.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Balt_Outer_Harbor.html

The Outer Harbor Crossing, an 11-mile-long toll facility between MD-10 Arundel Freeway and MD-151 North Point Boulevard, was opened to traffic on March 23, 1977, and this completed the Baltimore Beltway.  The Outer Harbor Crossing was planned as a two-lane freeway on four-lane right-of-way, with a single-tube two-lane 6,200-foot-long harbor tunnel.  The two-lane freeway was placed under construction, the causeways (landfill for roadway across a water body) for the tunnel portals were built, and when the tunnel was advertised for construction in 1970, the bids received on July 30, 1970 were so high that it was determined that a four-lane high-level bridge could be built for about the same cost as the revised estimate for the tunnel project, about $50 million.  So the bridge was built, well-known to motorists as the Francis Scott Key Bridge.

The substructure contract bids for the bridge were received on August 24, 1972, so the new design took 2 years to complete.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Alps

Scott: You are looking at the wrong side of things - if bids were too HIGH, then you can go back and rework. Jeff is right. When bids are too LOW, you don't reverse course. You go ahead and see what you can add on. But you don't restart the design phase.

Beltway

Quote from: Alps on November 23, 2019, 07:09:04 PM
Scott: You are looking at the wrong side of things - if bids were too HIGH, then you can go back and rework. Jeff is right. When bids are too LOW, you don't reverse course. You go ahead and see what you can add on. But you don't restart the design phase.
That is why I mentioned several different methods.

Revising the design and issuing a work order is one method.  That would be a major revision to build a substructure and superstructure that is 16 to 20 feet wider.  Not sure whether it would mean total redesign or not.

But I would like to see them take advantage of the low bidding environment and add full shoulders to the bridge (yeah some people might think that is a pipe dream!).
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

hbelkins

Quote from: Alps on November 23, 2019, 07:09:04 PM
Scott: You are looking at the wrong side of things - if bids were too HIGH, then you can go back and rework. Jeff is right. When bids are too LOW, you don't reverse course. You go ahead and see what you can add on. But you don't restart the design phase.

Wonder how much preliminary design work may have been done on other options?

I get the impression, though, that in design work, it's easier and cheaper to cut back than to add on. In one close-to-home project, the initial design was for 12-foot lanes, 10-foot shoulders and truck lanes on a nine-mile section of road. But TPTB decided they wanted to save money, so they re-engineered it into a route with 11-foot lanes, 4-foot shoulders, and no truck lanes. I'm guessing it was simpler to cut back than it would have been to add on.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Beltway

Quote from: hbelkins on November 23, 2019, 07:31:40 PM
I get the impression, though, that in design work, it's easier and cheaper to cut back than to add on. In one close-to-home project, the initial design was for 12-foot lanes, 10-foot shoulders and truck lanes on a nine-mile section of road. But TPTB decided they wanted to save money, so they re-engineered it into a route with 11-foot lanes, 4-foot shoulders, and no truck lanes. I'm guessing it was simpler to cut back than it would have been to add on.
There may well be an "agency mindset" in most agencies to be more resistant to expanding a design as opposed to vice versa.

The costs of modifying the design plans should be about equal for either direction, though.  That would depend too on how much needed to be changed.  Depends on how many hours of design work needs to be performed.

An expanded design could impact other project elements such as requiring more right-of-way, obtaining new USCG permits, etc.  A reduced design might not impact those things.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

dlsterner

Was it ever considered to re-purpose the old bridge as bicycle/pedestrian rather than demolishing it upon completion of the new bridge?  Or would the maintenance and upkeep on the old bridge be prohibitive?

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Beltway on November 23, 2019, 05:46:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 23, 2019, 04:10:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on November 23, 2019, 05:08:40 AM
The ideal time to revise the design would have been before the award, then to rebid.
Ludicrous.  That's like a table getting dealt cards face up in a poker hand, then telling everyone to bet.
You can't go back to rebid just because the bids are lower than expected, then add stuff to the package and rebid the entire package. 
Actually you can, and the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) has done so in the past.

Their Key Bridge was originally planned as a tunnel.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Balt_Outer_Harbor.html

The Outer Harbor Crossing, an 11-mile-long toll facility between MD-10 Arundel Freeway and MD-151 North Point Boulevard, was opened to traffic on March 23, 1977, and this completed the Baltimore Beltway.  The Outer Harbor Crossing was planned as a two-lane freeway on four-lane right-of-way, with a single-tube two-lane 6,200-foot-long harbor tunnel.  The two-lane freeway was placed under construction, the causeways (landfill for roadway across a water body) for the tunnel portals were built, and when the tunnel was advertised for construction in 1970, the bids received on July 30, 1970 were so high that it was determined that a four-lane high-level bridge could be built for about the same cost as the revised estimate for the tunnel project, about $50 million.  So the bridge was built, well-known to motorists as the Francis Scott Key Bridge.

The substructure contract bids for the bridge were received on August 24, 1972, so the new design took 2 years to complete.


New Jersey (and I'm sure many other states and agencies) have done this as well.  When bids come in too high, they throw out all bids.  As mentioned, nothing unusual about that.  They go back to see what can be eliminated or reworked, then they put the project out to bid again.  However, this certainly impacts the original timeline of the project.  When it comes to waterway crossings especially, there's some things certain things that can be worked on during certain periods of time due to marine or environmental factors.

It would also be very questionable how a project comes in nearly 40% below estimates.  The economy is doing quite well, and most projects are coming in around their estimates.  Did the agency never updated their estimate, either in house or publically?  Did they greatly miscalculate materials?  What did the other bidders bid?  The NJ Turnpike website is good for posting minutes of their meetings.  This includes bid results and contract awards.  Whenever the winning bid comes in much higher or lower than expected, they will review the bids.  Sometimes, if all the bids are similarly received, they determine what line items were the cause for it and usually approve the winning bid if deemed reasonable.  If the low bid contractor gave a bid sufficiently below estimates, they'll consider other work they've done for the Turnpike and will even have a meeting with them to determine if they properly bid the project.  A low-ball bid sometimes doesn't work out if the company doesn't have the expertise, and winds up costing everyone more in the long-run.

You're gonna be real hard pressed to find a project where the bids all came in so low that they threw them out and redesigned the entire project for more work. Small modifications during a project are fine.  A wholesale large-scale change is actually probably gonna cause the losing firms to consider legal action.

Quote from: hbelkins on November 23, 2019, 07:31:40 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 23, 2019, 07:09:04 PM
Scott: You are looking at the wrong side of things - if bids were too HIGH, then you can go back and rework. Jeff is right. When bids are too LOW, you don't reverse course. You go ahead and see what you can add on. But you don't restart the design phase.

Wonder how much preliminary design work may have been done on other options?

I get the impression, though, that in design work, it's easier and cheaper to cut back than to add on. In one close-to-home project, the initial design was for 12-foot lanes, 10-foot shoulders and truck lanes on a nine-mile section of road. But TPTB decided they wanted to save money, so they re-engineered it into a route with 11-foot lanes, 4-foot shoulders, and no truck lanes. I'm guessing it was simpler to cut back than it would have been to add on.

Certainly all depends.  Sometimes during those preliminary designs, they come upon something that is so costly to change or remove that it's worth it to rework the design and request exceptions.  Usually we're not talking about utilities which can usually be reworked, but something more major like a small piece of federal property that'll take decades to convince DC to sell (yeah, stupid stuff like that happens).

In most design phases, they go thru numerous design options for the best fit.  If a project needs to be reworked, they can often pull up a previous design that was discarded and utilize that.

I did see one project near me that went the opposite way though.  An intersection with US 322 and CR 551 is just a simple single-lane each way, no turn lanes intersection, which caused horrendous backups.  Adding to the issue is a school right there and a hump on 322 that caused slight-line issues.  At a public meeting, the preliminary design option proposed just adding a left turn lane in each direction.  I remember talking with a consultant at the meeting stating that they should expand this wider, and he accused me of wanting to make it a full blown highway.  What was a little ironic about this conversation is that the engineer company's website includes work on other projects in other states, where they literally widened sleepy 2 lane roads to become 6 lane wide urban arterials!  In the end, NJDOT increased the scope of the project, to allow a more significant widening to 2 lanes per direction and a left turn lane on US 322, and wider lanes and shoulders on CR 551.

Beltway

Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 24, 2019, 09:56:57 AM
It would also be very questionable how a project comes in nearly 40% below estimates.  The economy is doing quite well, and most projects are coming in around their estimates.  Did the agency never updated their estimate, either in house or publically?  Did they greatly miscalculate materials?  What did the other bidders bid?
It can happen for a variety of reasons, it all depends on how hungry the contractors are for work, these ones could be in between major projects and in need for more work, and there are very few construction firms or consortiums that can build a project of that magnitude (whether the Outer Harbor Crossing Tunnel or the new US-301 Nice Bridge), so that increases the difficulty of estimating.

The fact that three firms, the Skanska-Corman-McLean (SCM) Joint Venture, coordinated to build the bridge, could create synergy to bid a much lower price and still be able to generate a profit for the firms.

I have been watching contracting for 50 years, it is apparent that sometimes bids can come in much higher or much lower than the engineers' estimate.

The Fort McHenry Tunnel had a similar situation
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Fort_McHenry_Tunnel.html#Cut-and-Cover

The 2,300-foot-long West Approach Contract was awarded in November 1981 to Lane Construction Corp. of Meriden, Conn., and the award amount was $64 million.  The Interstate Division for Baltimore City (IDBC), a joint city-state agency established to administer the construction of Interstate highways in the City of Baltimore, had estimated the cost at $126 million, so the low bid was 51% of the estimated cost.  National recession and shortfall in state and federal highway funding in the early 1980s caused heavy construction contractors to be hungry for work, and in many cases around the country they bid individual projects far below the agency estimate. 

The West Approach contract included the relocation of existing railroads, the addition of 2,800 feet of new track, the construction of cut-and-cover cast-in-place reinforced concrete tunnel structure, the construction of open depressed approaches, and the erection of the west ventilation building.

The 1,600-foot-long East Approach Contract was awarded in June 1982 to S.J. Groves & Sons Co. of Minneapolis, Minn., and the award amount was $37 million.  IDBC had estimated the cost at $50 million, so the low bid was 26% below the agency estimated cost. 

The East Approach contract included the construction of cut-and-cover cast-in-place reinforced concrete tunnel structure, the construction of open depressed approaches, and the erection of the east ventilation building.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

^

Didn't a similar situation happen with the US-17 relocation in Southern Chesapeake, coming out far lower than engineer estimate?

hbelkins

I'm wondering if adjustments in labor costs can result in bids coming in below estimates.

A couple of years ago, Kentucky repealed its state prevailing wage law for school construction contracts. (I'm pretty sure it didn't apply to road construction contracts, especially since many of those projects are federally funded and thus would be subject to federal laws such as Davis-Bacon). Shortly thereafter, a contract was let for construction of a new school in a county about an hour away. I'm told the bids came in $6 million below estimates because the cost of labor was drastically reduced.

I really wish states would use their ability to estimate project costs to get bids down. Most of the contractors who bid on road projects don't do anything else. If the state would start setting lower estimates and rejecting bids, the companies would have to reduce their bids accordingly to get work.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.