The hidden costs of highway maintenance

[kphoger]

What are some things that we tend to overlook when thinking about highway maintenance?

For example, a lot of us hate seeing truss bridges being demolished and wonder why they can't simply be restored.  But maintaining an old steel truss bridge is super expensive.  I have it on good authority that the Richmond—San Rafael Bridge (I-580 over the San Francisco Bay) will cost $500 million just to re-paint––half of it!  It had never occurred to me until recently that re-painting could be a major expense when it comes to bridge maintenance.

What are some others?

[jeffandnicole]

Everything.

Let's start with a simple repaving.  People think: New Asphalt.  They forget all the things that are involved, from traffic light sensors, line painting, barrels and cones, traffic control, drainage, revising sidewalk access, tree trimming, trailers are needed for construction officials.  Porta-potties.   Railroad Insurance certificate if rail lines are nearby, and the list goes on...

NJDOT does a great job listing the full bids for each line item for every project they do.  The amount of detail is extortionary.  Way more extensive than what most of us would even comprehend.

[kphoger]

drainage

This can also add significantly to the timeline of a construction project.  People think nothing's happening with the project, not realizing that open drainage is being converted to closed drainage.  From their perspective, it just looks like they tore up the road and then stopped working on it.

[CtrlAltDel]

I have it on good authority that the Richmond—San Rafael Bridge (I-580 over the San Francisco Bay) will cost $500 million just to re-paint––half of it!

Are you sure about this number? I ask because the last time the bridge was repainted, in 2014, the cost was much lower, near $30 million. Although, it is possible that the scope of this other project is much wider.

[kphoger]

I have it on good authority that the Richmond—San Rafael Bridge (I-580 over the San Francisco Bay) will cost $500 million just to re-paint––half of it!

Are you sure about this number? I ask because the last time the bridge was repainted, in 2014, the cost was much lower, near $30 million. Although, it is possible that the scope of this other project is much wider.

I probably need to shift the decimal one spot.  Let me confirm...

[kphoger]

It appears, after some back and forth, that my good authority isn't as good as I thought it was.  Also, just to be sure, I looked at the project info from 2014 and it did indeed state "all steel surfaces on bridge no. 28-0100 to bare metal", so it doesn't appear to have been a partial project.

So let's just assume my number is worthless.  Still, $28.6 million dollars for a paint job that only lasted five years is quite a steep expense.

[CtrlAltDel]

Still, $28.6 million dollars for a paint job that only lasted five years is quite a steep expense.

No argument there.

[J N Winkler]

Re-painting is definitely an expense and an environmental headache, not just for steel truss bridges but also for ordinary steel plate girder bridges.  Agencies have been moving toward weathering steel for bridge girders for precisely this reason.

In the case of large suspension bridges, preventing corrosion of the suspension cables is an expensive and technically demanding headache.  Some agencies have installed dehumidification plant in anchorage structures.  Loss of cable strength due to corrosion is the main reason the Forth Road Bridge near Edinburgh has been converted to pedestrians, bicycles, and transit vehicles only, with ordinary car traffic being re-routed to the new Queensferry crossing.

[Rick Powell]

Still, $28.6 million dollars for a paint job that only lasted five years is quite a steep expense.

The lead based paints that were formerly used were environmentally terrible, but lasted a long time. New formulations, some using zinc, often don't last as long.

[Bruce]

Echoing the comment on drainage...it has helped kill a lot of sidewalk and bike projects here because the existing street wasn't adequately engineered for stormwater.

Not so much maintenance as general societal costs: respiratory issues for people who live next to freeways (including high rates of childhood asthma), obesity and heart problems caused by a lack of physical activity (aided by long driving commutes), and flooding/erosion caused by the lack of permeable land (because it was literally paved over).

[vdeane]

Sidewalks/curb ramps, especially since the DOJ ruled that they must be upgraded to meet ADA standards when a road is resurfaced.  This has substantially increased the cost of resurfacing said sections of roadway, to the point where some municipalities are choosing where to pave based on what streets do/don't have curb ramps that need to be upgraded/repaired.  I think one municipality went from being able to pave 10 miles of roadway a year with their state funds to just two.

(personal opinion)

[Rothman]

Vdeane's right.  No matter how much ADA compliance is needed, the resources needed to meet that requirement have been considerable (e.g., army of temps to identify non-compliant locations).

[roadfro]

One thing we don't think about: Lighting

Whether it's roadway lights or sign lighting, it's a significant annual expense for DOTs and public agencies to maintain and operate. Also part of the reason agencies are starting to remove light fixtures from overhead signage and convert various roadway light fixtures to LED.

[noelbotevera]

For me, machinery and people.

How is somebody going to construct the bridges or light fixtures? How will somebody pilot the crane to actually install a light fixture, or operate the machine to move bridge pieces?

The costs are probably less than what I'm expecting, but I suspect DOTs spend millions on purchasing or maintaining machinery to use for projects. Then there's the wages (and pensions) of the workers who are competent enough to pilot the machines.

[Duke87]

Here's another good one: winter weather. Don't think people quite appreciate just how expensive this is.

It's not just the cost of salting/sanding/plowing roads... it's also the fact that freeze-thaw cycles create potholes, frost heaves, and other forms of wear and tear on pavement. And the fact that placing salt on the roads accelerates corrosion on everything it touches, thus causing bridges, culverts, and other structures to age faster. As well as causing vehicles to start experiencing potentially problematic body rust. And let's not forget that winter weather increases crash rates, which places both direct and indirect costs on the agencies that have to respond to, manage, and clean up after these incidents.

The effect of winter weather on maintenance costs is substantial enough that there is a noticeable correlation between state gas tax rates and latitude:

[hotdogPi]

I'm not seeing much difference for latitude. (It's there, but other things are stronger.) The difference I do see correlates more strongly to where the price of everything is more expensive.

R² coefficients:

Gas price as of about a year ago: 0.51
Cost of living: 0.50
2010 population: 0.44
Minimum wage: 0.35
Latitude: 0.31
2012 and 2016 elections: 0.30, with Democratic = higher tax (coincidentally the same for both)
Sales tax %: 0.17
% of population living in cities 100k+: 0.14
Population density: -0.03, +0.18 if excluding DC (surprised here, but NJ probably throws it off)

[roadfro]

For me, machinery and people.

How is somebody going to construct the bridges or light fixtures? How will somebody pilot the crane to actually install a light fixture, or operate the machine to move bridge pieces?

The costs are probably less than what I'm expecting, but I suspect DOTs spend millions on purchasing or maintaining machinery to use for projects. Then there's the wages (and pensions) of the workers who are competent enough to pilot the machines.

You might be conflating difference between new construction and ongoing maintenance.

The personnel and many machinery costs are usually factored into the agency's operating budget, or a contract cost (if the agency is not maintaining a facility directly).

[noelbotevera]

For me, machinery and people.

How is somebody going to construct the bridges or light fixtures? How will somebody pilot the crane to actually install a light fixture, or operate the machine to move bridge pieces?

The costs are probably less than what I'm expecting, but I suspect DOTs spend millions on purchasing or maintaining machinery to use for projects. Then there's the wages (and pensions) of the workers who are competent enough to pilot the machines.

You might be conflating difference between new construction and ongoing maintenance.

The personnel and many machinery costs are usually factored into the agency's operating budget, or a contract cost (if the agency is not maintaining a facility directly).

To ensure that I am comprehending concepts correctly, here is my understanding on Nevada DOT's predicted budget, as of 2017.

According to slide (or page) 20, Nevada DOT is projected to spend $300 million on personnel over the next two years. I presume that this personnel cost factors in the payment of all the workers, engineers, and managers in both maintenance projects and new construction throughout the state. The succeeding slide notes that $4.1 million has been requested for personnel services, which is possibly pensions and healthcare benefits.

An example of how much machinery and personnel costs dominate road maintenance is on slide 32, where effectively $3.75 million is being spent to maintain both I-11 and USA Parkway. Sadly, this presentation doesn't divulge personnel costs on Project Neon.

This document better details the responsibilities of NDOT staff, but I find it peculiar that project delivery receives more funding than highway management.

Nonetheless, $300 million is no figure to scoff at in terms of highway costs, but I presume that this cost is much lesser in new construction than in maintenance.

[jeffandnicole]

The $300mm is probably in-house (NDOT) personal.  They are helping design stuff, mow lawns, replace signs, checking lights, etc. 

Most construction projects are actually done by contractors.   The $300mm won't include the salaries of those contractors and workers doing the work.  The $300mm may include the NDOT project manager salaries overseeing the work though.

[J N Winkler]

To ensure that I am comprehending concepts correctly, here is my understanding on Nevada DOT's predicted budget, as of 2017.

According to slide (or page) 20, Nevada DOT is projected to spend $300 million on personnel over the next two years. I presume that this personnel cost factors in the payment of all the workers, engineers, and managers in both maintenance projects and new construction throughout the state. The succeeding slide notes that $4.1 million has been requested for personnel services, which is possibly pensions and healthcare benefits.

The $300 million personnel cost is the total cost for the agency, which has about 1900 full-time-equivalent (FTE) positions.  This includes people involved in maintenance, project delivery, etc. but not contractor personnel for activities such as construction that NDOT typically procures through contract.  $300 million for 1,900 people works out to an average cost per employee of $157,000, which seems to me a bit on the high side but does include not just the salary paid to the employee but also healthcare costs, pension contributions, fringe benefits, etc.

As others have said, highway construction is typically procured through contract, though agencies typically have some plant and employees on hand, one reason for this being to maintain the ability to take on small jobs (e.g., repairing washed-out culverts) on an emergency basis.  In the US and many other countries, a typical highway construction contract is a unit price contract, where the agency lays out its estimate of how much of each bid item listed on a bill or schedule of quantities will be required to complete the contract.  Bid items are things like asphalt (measured by the pound), traffic control (some states measure by the day, others ask for a lump sum), sign panels (usually measured by the square foot), sign posts (measured by the linear foot), etc.  The scope of each bid item includes not just the physical material called for but also the services involved in placing that material on the finished facility.  A really large turnkey contract can easily have hundreds or thousands of separate bid items.

Each highway contractor typically has an estimator on staff who assembles a bid by calculating the contractor's cost (including not just materials and plant but also personnel, which in turn includes not just people the contractor already employs but also tradespeople the contractor can hire for the job at the minimum rates prescribed by the federal government) to supply the quantity of each bid item that is called for.  The bid then goes to the state DOT (or other agency) with a certain amount of profit packed into each bid item.  The amount depends on the contractor's read of the bidding environment (how many other contractors are likely to bid?) as well as how "hungry" the contractor is to win the contract to stay in business (idle workers and equipment cost money).

Plant is typically not a huge factor in the affordability of an individual contract for either the contractor or the agency.  One major exception to this occurs in connection with bored tunnel contracts, however.  Tunnel boring machines are stupendously expensive, so the cost of tunnelling goes down enormously when the cost of a single TBM can be amortized across multiple contracts.  This is part of the reason tunnelling is significantly cheaper in Norway and Spain (many tunnels, most bored) than it is in the US (very few tunnelling contracts in progress at any given time).

An example of how much machinery and personnel costs dominate road maintenance is on slide 32, where effectively $3.75 million is being spent to maintain both I-11 and USA Parkway. Sadly, this presentation doesn't divulge personnel costs on Project Neon.

Slide 32 is a budget request ("Give us this additional money so we can handle new maintenance obligations").  You are quoting the amount for FY 2018, which includes $2.8 million in equipment, which is a onetime cost.  Other costs (including personnel) are essentially flat in comparison, and the FY 2019 amount is much lower, about $1.3 million.  I think this is broadly in line with the average maintenance cost per lane mile for the state highway system as a whole multiplied by the lane mileage covered by I-11 and USA Parkway.

These projects have been done for some time and have presumably undergone final acceptance.  Project Neon is still in progress, so there will likely be a budget request for its maintenance sometime in the future.

[roadfro]

The $300mm is probably in-house (NDOT) personal.  They are helping design stuff, mow lawns, replace signs, checking lights, etc. 

Most construction projects are actually done by contractors.   The $300mm won't include the salaries of those contractors and workers doing the work.  The $300mm may include the NDOT project manager salaries overseeing the work though.

This.

Most new construction and major maintenance/rehab projects, including design of same, are not performed by an agency and instead are contracted out.

NDOT's personnel costs wouldn't include many skilled workers or design engineers for new construction, but would include project managers and routine maintenance forces on NDOT payroll.

[paulthemapguy]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the colossal IDOT list of possible coded pay items you might find on a roadway improvement contract.

http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Doing-Business/Specialty-Lists/Highways/Design-&-Environment/Coded-Pay-Items/011819/20190118HWYCodedPayItems.pdf

[formulanone]

I still suspect that creating the toll monster means feeding it, since it won't turn a profit for 5-10 years, and that's if it's well-used.

Most of the revenue goes towards the maintenance and upkeep of gathering devices, barriers, additional signage, billing, and enforcement rather than improvements.

Better than nothing in some cases where there is no revenue stream, but can be as bad as nothing in others.

[J N Winkler]

I still suspect that creating the toll monster means feeding it, since it won't turn a profit for 5-10 years, and that's if it's well-used.

Most of the revenue goes towards the maintenance and upkeep of gathering devices, barriers, additional signage, billing, and enforcement rather than improvements.

The stylized fact is that collection expense for a traditional toll road (no automation of toll collection through electronic transponders and readers) is about one-third of revenues.  It has been claimed that technology reduces this percentage, but it requires significant upfront investments in equipment, and with all the back-office requirements there is no way whatsoever that it can approximate the collection cost of the fuel tax, which is about 1% "off the rack" at the terminal.

Toll roads are partly about keeping a gravy train running, and that in turn has created a perverse incentive for consultants to produce traffic and revenue studies that grossly overestimate profitability.  Wilbur Smith did many of these in the mid-noughties, many of them for toll roads that now require subsidy for operating expenses, and that is part of the reason its reputation is now mud.

[UCFKnights]

I still suspect that creating the toll monster means feeding it, since it won't turn a profit for 5-10 years, and that's if it's well-used.

Most of the revenue goes towards the maintenance and upkeep of gathering devices, barriers, additional signage, billing, and enforcement rather than improvements.

Better than nothing in some cases where there is no revenue stream, but can be as bad as nothing in others.

I imagine thats come down a lot with most new toll roads being all-electronic and not having to build, maintain, and staff toll booths anymore.

But your comment reminded me of Orlando's SunRail train, where I read the revenue from tickets didn't even cover the cost of maintaining the ticket machines. If they'd stopped bothering to even try to collect money for the train, they'd have better ridership and save money lol