I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge....DEAD??

[sprjus4]

and tolls should be allowed everywhere and even mandated for bridges and tunnels, among other big and expensive infrastructure projects.

Then what is the point of raising the gas tax? Shouldn't that cover what tolls would? Why both?

[Bobby5280]

basic education on infrastructure costs should be made mandatory to graduate high school

No. The thing that actually needs to happen (especially if there would be a giant hike in gasoline and EV charging taxes) is the highway industry needs to provide a full accounting to explain why their costs have long outstripped the pace of inflation. These guys are operating with a blank check.

My own paycheck hasn't been going up and up and up like that. But I need to pay a lot more in taxes so these other guys can keep taking more and more money? F*** that.

The idea that high school students need an education on infrastructure costs sounds pretty silly. Are they also going to take classes on the cost structures of the health care industry or the military? Sounds like a way to spread pro-industry propaganda.

[Rothman]

basic education on infrastructure costs should be made mandatory to graduate high school

No. The thing that actually needs to happen (especially if there would be a giant hike in gasoline and EV charging taxes) is the highway industry needs to provide a full accounting to explain why their costs have long outstripped the pace of inflation. These guys are operating with a blank check.

This statement is one made out of a certain level of ignorance and an overly simplistic view of how the CPI works when it comes to inflation (I mean, take any industry sector and its own inflation rate will be out of whack with the CPI).

What, you don't think DOT's do bid analyses at the project level and market analyses at the program level?  DOTs review every low bid, item by item, against market conditions.

And it isn't like the "transportation industry" is monolithic.  Think of everything that must come together for a project to be built -- labor, engineering, materials, expertise...Businesses hiring businesses to get the job done, so the effects on cost are not simple.

Certainly, regulation has increased design costs over time.  But, those regulations are here to stay, since getting rid of them means you're against preserving the environment (NEPA), historical features (federal/state historical regs, Section 106...), recreational areas (4f), etc., etc.

However, contractors have mostly pointed at material costs as the main culprit behind construction inflation, especially with steel and asphalt.

So, great, now that you have an idea behind what's behind inflation in the construction industry, what is to be done about it?  Build bridges without steel?  Build roads without asphalt?  Just bulldoze a freeway through your neighborhood without your input (people tend to forget that public outreach is from and not separate from NEPA)?  Perhaps we should go back to the days when DOTs could just kick people out of their homes indiscriminately to save on ROW costs...

Anyway, the more I hear about "runaway inflation" arguments, the more I question if they're really disingenuous given the realities.

[J N Winkler]

Standards have also changed over time.  In Kansas, for example, Portland cement concrete pavement eight to ten inches deep was used for the free Interstates when they were built; now, to secure greater durability, 12 inches is the norm.  Any relocation of a two-lane highway is going to be much more expensive in real terms than the original facility, because it will have full shoulders and much more forgiving geometry (means much more earthmoving and culvert construction).  Nearly all of these translate to larger quantities of bid items falling into categories such as earthmoving, concrete, asphalt, steel, etc. where unit costs have also risen.

[bwana39]

The issue is the level of precision they are trying to achieve. The engineering os to the point an xrayed section with the rebar 1/2" off would have to be dug up and redone. The state DOT's have more engineers per lane mile now than they did in the 1960's and back then, they designed the roads. Now contractors (consultants) do all the engineering the DOT's just check and verify.

A road in 1975 that would have had to be within 12" in a 300' run now has to be within 1" or less.  The chemical analysis of materials is consistently increasing and the plants that process concrete and asphalt have to have chemists or engineers test what a lab tech or even a plant operator did before.

If the quality were improved or if the costs were decreasing, I would applaud the microengineering and technical analysis. The problem is they aren't. The quality is many cases is worse and the costs are spiraling. The pre-construction engineering costs have increased to nearly 1 Million dollars per road mile.

[J N Winkler]

The steeper construction costs also translate to higher stakes for design choices, such as how to waterproof subgrades.  When it relocated US 50 between Walton and Florence in the 1990's, upgrading it from asphalt with no shoulders and (probably) 11-foot lanes to Portland cement concrete with full structural shoulders and 12-foot lanes, Kansas DOT made the expensive mistake of using a sealant to try to prevent water intrusion.  It did not work, and the road has required frequent repair ever since to address slab cracking.

[Rothman]

The issue is the level of precision they are trying to achieve. The engineering os to the point an xrayed section with the rebar 1/2" off would have to be dug up and redone. The state DOT's have more engineers per lane mile now than they did in the 1960's and back then, they designed the roads. Now contractors (consultants) do all the engineering the DOT's just check and verify.

A road in 1975 that would have had to be within 12" in a 300' run now has to be within 1" or less.  The chemical analysis of materials is consistently increasing and the plants that process concrete and asphalt have to have chemists or engineers test what a lab tech or even a plant operator did before.

If the quality were improved or if the costs were decreasing, I would applaud the microengineering and technical analysis. The problem is they aren't. The quality is many cases is worse and the costs are spiraling. The pre-construction engineering costs have increased to nearly 1 Million dollars per road mile.

Regarding your first paragraph, DOTs rely upon consultants for more complex, large projects, but the bulk of the quantity of projects is still done in-house: Most paving projects and smaller bridge replacements and rehabs, etc., etc.  I think there is some pressure from lobbyists to move that line down to have more consultants to do the work, which will raise engineering costs.

Regarding your second paragraph, it is unthinkable nowadays to have a DOT be off by a large distance due to ROW rights.  You want that old buffer, then let it apply in front of your house.

Regarding your third paragraph, $1m per mile is not an accurate summary measure of the cost.  With the emphasis on "complete streets" and smart growth, where DOTs must take into account sidewalks and other bike/ped considerations...along with drainage, if a heavier treatment is desired, sure, engineering is going to take a bite.  But then you have vendor-in-place paving where the engineering is nil.  To say that the extra consideration for pedestrian traffic for heavier treatments is not a quality improvement is not a defendable position.  I have yet to experience a project through a settled area where a locality just said, "Yeah, forget about the sidewalks/crossings/trails/bike routes in the area near our crumbling road and just get it paved."

[rte66man]

The issue is the level of precision they are trying to achieve. The engineering os to the point an xrayed section with the rebar 1/2" off would have to be dug up and redone. The state DOT's have more engineers per lane mile now than they did in the 1960's and back then, they designed the roads. Now contractors (consultants) do all the engineering the DOT's just check and verify.

A road in 1975 that would have had to be within 12" in a 300' run now has to be within 1" or less.  The chemical analysis of materials is consistently increasing and the plants that process concrete and asphalt have to have chemists or engineers test what a lab tech or even a plant operator did before.

If the quality were improved or if the costs were decreasing, I would applaud the microengineering and technical analysis. The problem is they aren't. The quality is many cases is worse and the costs are spiraling. The pre-construction engineering costs have increased to nearly 1 Million dollars per road mile.

Regarding your first paragraph, DOTs rely upon consultants for more complex, large projects, but the bulk of the quantity of projects is still done in-house: Most paving projects and smaller bridge replacements and rehabs, etc., etc.  I think there is some pressure from lobbyists to move that line down to have more consultants to do the work, which will raise engineering costs.

Add pressure from your state lawmakers "to do more with less" by cutting FTE counts regardless of the need; thereby forcing DOTs to contract out more and more work.

[Rothman]

The issue is the level of precision they are trying to achieve. The engineering os to the point an xrayed section with the rebar 1/2" off would have to be dug up and redone. The state DOT's have more engineers per lane mile now than they did in the 1960's and back then, they designed the roads. Now contractors (consultants) do all the engineering the DOT's just check and verify.

A road in 1975 that would have had to be within 12" in a 300' run now has to be within 1" or less.  The chemical analysis of materials is consistently increasing and the plants that process concrete and asphalt have to have chemists or engineers test what a lab tech or even a plant operator did before.

If the quality were improved or if the costs were decreasing, I would applaud the microengineering and technical analysis. The problem is they aren't. The quality is many cases is worse and the costs are spiraling. The pre-construction engineering costs have increased to nearly 1 Million dollars per road mile.

Regarding your first paragraph, DOTs rely upon consultants for more complex, large projects, but the bulk of the quantity of projects is still done in-house: Most paving projects and smaller bridge replacements and rehabs, etc., etc.  I think there is some pressure from lobbyists to move that line down to have more consultants to do the work, which will raise engineering costs.

Add pressure from your state lawmakers "to do more with less" by cutting FTE counts regardless of the need; thereby forcing DOTs to contract out more and more work.

In NY, I've seen hiring practices/allowances at NYSDOT be a "talking out of both sides of our mouths" on this.  Although I've seen some regional design groups squeezed and some more work going to consultants (resulting in a higher engineering cost), there's now a proposal for assistant engineers and titles lower in grade than that to no longer require a civil service exam, in the name of making the hiring process easier to relieve this situation (it's just a proposal right now). 

However again, NY Civil Service salaries for engineers are lower than in the private sector and the retirement pension has been whittled away for newer employees (although a significant remnant remains, compared to a typical 401(k)).  Add to that NYSDOT leaving telecommuting policies to the discretion of main office and regional directors, rather than having one department-wide policy, and you have some boomers or other leaders that come from the operations side of the Department that restrict telecommuting to the point where ot also becomes a disadvantage to hiring against the private sector.

So, you see actions pulling in contradictory ways on this one, when it comes to support for the statement that there is a deliberate effort to push more engineering to consultants.

[civilengineeringnerd]

basic education on infrastructure costs should be made mandatory to graduate high school

No. The thing that actually needs to happen (especially if there would be a giant hike in gasoline and EV charging taxes) is the highway industry needs to provide a full accounting to explain why their costs have long outstripped the pace of inflation. These guys are operating with a blank check.

This statement is one made out of a certain level of ignorance and an overly simplistic view of how the CPI works when it comes to inflation (I mean, take any industry sector and its own inflation rate will be out of whack with the CPI).

What, you don't think DOT's do bid analyses at the project level and market analyses at the program level?  DOTs review every low bid, item by item, against market conditions.

And it isn't like the "transportation industry" is monolithic.  Think of everything that must come together for a project to be built -- labor, engineering, materials, expertise...Businesses hiring businesses to get the job done, so the effects on cost are not simple.

Certainly, regulation has increased design costs over time.  But, those regulations are here to stay, since getting rid of them means you're against preserving the environment (NEPA), historical features (federal/state historical regs, Section 106...), recreational areas (4f), etc., etc.

However, contractors have mostly pointed at material costs as the main culprit behind construction inflation, especially with steel and asphalt.

So, great, now that you have an idea behind what's behind inflation in the construction industry, what is to be done about it?  Build bridges without steel?  Build roads without asphalt?  Just bulldoze a freeway through your neighborhood without your input (people tend to forget that public outreach is from and not separate from NEPA)?  Perhaps we should go back to the days when DOTs could just kick people out of their homes indiscriminately to save on ROW costs...

Anyway, the more I hear about "runaway inflation" arguments, the more I question if they're really disingenuous given the realities.

this right here is why it should be required to know the basics of how and what infrastructure projects get funded, just to graduate high school.
many people don't understand this, especially in the state where i live and other such states, as the majority (wrongfully of course) think and assume that DOTs are just being greedy and they expect the same gas tax to cover all roads and all projects for as long as they live, not understanding that inflation drives prices of goods that make up infrastructure, among other costs you mentioned here. when you have the majority illiterate on the costs of infrastructure and upkeep of said infrastructure, it can be bad for states, as raising gas taxes would equate to loss of political power during the next election cycle.

[Bobby5280]

You cationalize the bullshit with excuses all you want. In the end those rising costs get passed down to general public. Not everyone of us is getting big fat, fucking pay raises year after year. Most of the so-called income growth that has been happening in the US has been happening primarily in the top 10 percentile. But the media averages it out to make it seem like everyone's paycheck is getting bigger.

Dismissing inflation or making excuses for it is very out of touch. Lots of ordinary working class people are financially stretched. The rising costs of food, housing and so many other things has made people angry.

It's laughable to suggest high school students should know budget aspects of infrastructure. First, most people couldn't care less about such nerdy stuff. Next: a bunch of these kids can't even balance a check book. Obviously there is a great deal of adults in positions of power who completely forgot how to balance a check book as well.

[Anthony_JK]

Ummmmm......getting back on topic....


The revised contract for the bridge replacement was approved earlier this week by the same Senate Transportation Committee that rejected the earlier contract proposal; and the contract is now officially signed.


Announcement by the LADOTD


The committee hearing was still eventful because the same trucker's groups who raised holy Hell at the original meeting were still not happy with the revised proposal, even though it did cut their toll price down by a third.



Article in Louisiana Illuminator On Senate Committee Approval of Revised Bridge Contract




Final approval for the bonds needed to finance the project is expected in April; construction to begin next year with completion set for 2030.

[sprjus4]

^ Don't worry, truckers and other through traffic will just divert to I-210...

[bwana39]

^ Don't worry, truckers and other through traffic will just divert to I-210...

Nah, they will pay it. People gripe about tolls, but in actuality except in the cases of express lanes, they tend to gripe about them and go on.