This article from Politico uses the Penn Station project in NYC as a case study for why the US isn't good at building infrastructure these days. The short version is, we reacted to urban freeways plowing through neighborhoods to the point that it's now next to impossible for government to muster the power to build even projects that are very much needed.
Quote
The story of Penn Station's halting redevelopment comes in three separate waves of effort that rose up to replace the current squalor – and then, in the first two cases, crumbled into nothing. Pundits and editorials have tended to blame a rotating cast of characters for the rot – the railroad that owns the station, the state bureaucracies that have neglected it, the private real estate interests that have hemmed it in. But Penn Station has actually languished at the hands of another simple reality: No one has the leverage to fix it. The sad state of America's most important train station stems more from a failure of power than a failure of leadership. And shockingly enough, that's not by mistake – it's by design.
The roadblocks that prevent projects like Penn Station from quick completion were erected after a quiet but enormously consequential shift in progressive thinking – a transformation that began in the 1960s and still reverberates today. For the previous century, reformers ranging from Teddy Roosevelt to Woodrow Wilson had sought to combat the pernicious influence of political machines and corporate trusts by consolidating public power in the hands of expert technocrats, men (and, to be clear, they were mostly white men) driven to pursue the broader public interest. But by the early 1970s, the old progressive vision had shattered. No single event may have pointed the new way more clearly than the publication, mere months before Richard Nixon's resignation, of Robert Caro's "The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York."
Caro's 45-year-old masterpiece, which went on to win the Pulitzer Prize, is often billed as a biography of New York's most important 20th-century builder, an unelected official who remade the city's landscape between the mid-1920s and the late 1960s. But the 1,296-page book was also an indictment of government power that has since become a core tenet of progressive thinking. Since the 1970s, even as progressives have championed Big Government, they've worked tirelessly to put new checks on its power – to pull it away from imperious technocrats who might use government to bulldoze hapless communities. And it's that impulse to protect the powerless from the abuse of public power that is most responsible for the morass that is Penn Station.
https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2019/12/01/politico-magazine-this-is-why-your-holiday-travel-is-awful-1230067
Quote from: vdeane on December 05, 2019, 01:56:19 PM
This article from Politico uses the Penn Station project in NYC as a case study for why the US isn't good at building infrastructure these days. The short version is, we reacted to urban freeways plowing through neighborhoods to the point that it's now next to impossible for government to muster the power to build even projects that are very much needed.
I think you mean East Side Access, which will (some day) connect the LI RR to Grand Central Station. Massive delays, massive cost overruns.
Then there is the unbuilt Hudson River parallel railroad tunnel.
This is largely a NYC problem, largely not a USA problem.
East Side Access is a public works project under construction by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) in New York City, which will extend the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) from its Main Line in Queens into a new station under Grand Central Terminal on Manhattan's East Side. The new station and tunnels are tentatively scheduled to start service in December 2022, some 15 years behind schedule.
The project's estimated construction cost has risen nearly threefold from the planned $3.5 billion to $11.1 billion as of April 2018, making it one of the world's most expensive underground rail-construction projects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Side_Access
This is not solely a U.S. problem. The UK doesn't seem to get much off the ground either, and for example Switzerland - one of the wealthiest countries in the world - has extremely slow progress with the development of much needed infrastructure.
German projects are also extremely slow, though they do plan and start a lot of projects, but these are mired in bureaucracy and outdated processes.
And if you are interested in extremely overpriced projects, New York is an obvious example, but also... Australia. Their price tags for road projects are mind-boggling and not exclusively in dense urban areas.
Blaming roads is like blaming current president - damned if they do something and damned if they don't.
How about recognizing that there is ALWAYS a downside of EVERY action?
Quote from: Chris on December 05, 2019, 04:18:00 PM
German projects are also extremely slow, though they do plan and start a lot of projects, but these are mired in bureaucracy and outdated processes.
When it comes to slow German projects, there is one that always comes to mind... the Berlin-Brandenburg Airport. Recently, an announcement was made (https://www.thelocal.de/20191129/berlins-ber-airport-to-finally-open-in-october-next-year) saying it will open on Halloween in 2020. IMO, given the frequent delays in the past, I think this will probably not be the final opening date.
That monstrosity will never open. Part of it probably needs to be rehabbed since it has been so long since originally started.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on December 05, 2019, 05:48:52 PM
Quote from: Chris on December 05, 2019, 04:18:00 PM
German projects are also extremely slow, though they do plan and start a lot of projects, but these are mired in bureaucracy and outdated processes.
When it comes to slow German projects, there is one that always comes to mind... the Berlin-Brandenburg Airport. Recently, an announcement was made (https://www.thelocal.de/20191129/berlins-ber-airport-to-finally-open-in-october-next-year) saying it will open on Halloween in 2020. IMO, given the frequent delays in the past, I think this will probably not be the final opening date.
In Year 2050, they'll be saying it'll open by Christmas.
Quote from: kalvado on December 05, 2019, 05:02:02 PM
Blaming roads is like blaming current president - damned if they do something and damned if they don't.
How about recognizing that there is ALWAYS a downside of EVERY action?
Wow, where was
NE2 with a reply to that? He really dropped the ball...
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2019, 02:06:10 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 05, 2019, 01:56:19 PM
This article from Politico uses the Penn Station project in NYC as a case study for why the US isn't good at building infrastructure these days. The short version is, we reacted to urban freeways plowing through neighborhoods to the point that it's now next to impossible for government to muster the power to build even projects that are very much needed.
I think you mean East Side Access, which will (some day) connect the LI RR to Grand Central Station. Massive delays, massive cost overruns.
Then there is the unbuilt Hudson River parallel railroad tunnel.
This is largely a NYC problem, largely not a USA problem.
The article keeps talking about Penn Station, so that's what I'm going with.
It's not just an NYC problem, though it does happen disproportionately often there. I can think of several cases of similar things happening upstate. Out of state, just look at the Champlain Parkway in Vermont, or the Gordie Howe Bridge between Detroit and Windsor.
The Gordie Howe Bridge between Detroit and Windsor is not just out of state but also half in another country, Canada.
That is pretty complex building a $3 billion bridge that is large enough to cross a shipping channel between two countries, getting all the approvals and right-of-way and funding elements.
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2019, 09:10:49 PM
The Gordie Howe Bridge between Detroit and Windsor is not just out of state but also half in another country, Canada.
That is pretty complex building a $3 billion bridge that is large enough to cross a shipping channel between two countries, getting all the approvals and right-of-way and funding elements.
And it would have been built years ago if it weren't for Michigan and CBP not wanting to pay for their parts of the project or Mr. Mouron obstructing the thing at every turn. None of the delays have been on the part of Canada.
Another fun one: the Inter County Connector in Maryland.
Quote from: vdeane on December 05, 2019, 09:14:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2019, 09:10:49 PM
The Gordie Howe Bridge between Detroit and Windsor is not just out of state but also half in another country, Canada.
That is pretty complex building a $3 billion bridge that is large enough to cross a shipping channel between two countries, getting all the approvals and right-of-way and funding elements.
And it would have been built years ago if it weren't for Michigan and CBP not wanting to pay for their parts of the project or Mr. Mouron obstructing the thing at every turn. None of the delays have been on the part of Canada.
Just a very low priority for Canada.
Oh, Michigan never cooperated. Not sure about CBP. Canada just decided to do the project anyways and withhold Michigan's share of the toll revenue until their part of the project is paid back. What was ultimately the deciding factor was when the Mourons lost in court enough times that the project could finally move forward.
And yet another example: every Breezewood in PA, past and present, as well as the I-95 connection.
One could say Texas is where things are moving, but how many times HSR was planned between major TX cities?
An international megaproject is not a good example, in any case.
Besides, the city of Detroit has its own severe economic and population decline problems.
One could argue that the fact that building a bridge across a river is considered a "megaproject" is itself a symptom of how much harder it is to build things now than it used to be.
Quote from: vdeane on December 05, 2019, 09:44:12 PM
One could argue that the fact that building a bridge across a river is considered a "megaproject" is itself a symptom of how much harder it is to build things now than it used to be.
Bingo!
I like how Thruway was built in about 2 years, and it took almost longer to rebuild 23-24 stretch
Quote from: kalvado on December 05, 2019, 09:38:32 PM
One could say Texas is where things are moving, but how many times HSR was planned between major TX cities?
That's the perception, but something is very amiss in Texas, where they risked losing $1B in federal apportionment due to the legislated recission due to lack of obligation. Whichever congressperson slipped the repeal of the recission into whichever bill it was a few weeks ago saved their hide.
Quote from: Rothman on December 05, 2019, 09:56:58 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 05, 2019, 09:38:32 PM
One could say Texas is where things are moving, but how many times HSR was planned between major TX cities?
That's the perception, but something is very amiss in Texas, where they risked losing $1B in federal apportionment due to the legislated recission due to lack of obligation. Whichever congressperson slipped the repeal of the recission into whichever bill it was a few weeks ago saved their hide.
Can you try that again? Just pretend you are talking to an idiot, and try again.
Quote from: kalvado on December 05, 2019, 10:14:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 05, 2019, 09:56:58 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 05, 2019, 09:38:32 PM
One could say Texas is where things are moving, but how many times HSR was planned between major TX cities?
That's the perception, but something is very amiss in Texas, where they risked losing $1B in federal apportionment due to the legislated recission due to lack of obligation. Whichever congressperson slipped the repeal of the recission into whichever bill it was a few weeks ago saved their hide.
Can you try that again? Just pretend you are talking to an idiot, and try again.
Texas left $1B on the table even when they knew the Feds could take it away.
Quote from: vdeane on December 05, 2019, 09:44:12 PM
One could argue that the fact that building a bridge across a river is considered a "megaproject" is itself a symptom of how much harder it is to build things now than it used to be.
In that case the bridge would be 1.6 miles long and 180 feet of vertical clearance and a cable-stayed bridge with a main span of 2,800 feet which will span the whole river, and 6 lanes wide.
Yeah, that is a megaproject.
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2019, 11:40:27 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 05, 2019, 09:44:12 PM
One could argue that the fact that building a bridge across a river is considered a "megaproject" is itself a symptom of how much harder it is to build things now than it used to be.
In that case the bridge would be 1.6 miles long and 180 feet of vertical clearance and a cable-stayed bridge with a main span of 2,800 feet which will span the whole river, and 6 lanes wide.
Yeah, that is a megaproject.
Then what is 200 miles of freeway of which such a bridge is only one component?
The argument here is that the threshold for what is considered "mega" is too low - and that if things functioned more smoothly construction of such a bridge would be small in scale compared to other things going on.
The Gerald Desmond Bridge in Long Beach, CA.
The contract was awarded (https://www.nossaman.com/newsroom-news-port-of-long-beach-awards-design-build-contract-for-the-gerald-desmond-bridge-replacement-project) in 2012 with an anticipated completion in 2016
Almost into 2020, the bridge is still under construction. And the contract was awarded for $ 649 million in 2012. The latest news (https://www.enr.com/articles/47063-gerald-desmond-bridge-nears-completion) now speaks of a $ 1.5 billion project.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 06, 2019, 12:30:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2019, 11:40:27 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 05, 2019, 09:44:12 PM
One could argue that the fact that building a bridge across a river is considered a "megaproject" is itself a symptom of how much harder it is to build things now than it used to be.
In that case the bridge would be 1.6 miles long and 180 feet of vertical clearance and a cable-stayed bridge with a main span of 2,800 feet which will span the whole river, and 6 lanes wide.
Yeah, that is a megaproject.
Then what is 200 miles of freeway of which such a bridge is only one component?
More like 8 miles of freeway built to connect the bridge into the freeway system.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 06, 2019, 12:30:51 AM
The argument here is that the threshold for what is considered "mega" is too low - and that if things functioned more smoothly construction of such a bridge would be small in scale compared to other things going on.
The bridge and approach freeways above are "mega."
Is the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge not a "megaproject"?
Quote from: Beltway on December 06, 2019, 05:48:21 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 06, 2019, 12:30:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2019, 11:40:27 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 05, 2019, 09:44:12 PM
One could argue that the fact that building a bridge across a river is considered a "megaproject" is itself a symptom of how much harder it is to build things now than it used to be.
In that case the bridge would be 1.6 miles long and 180 feet of vertical clearance and a cable-stayed bridge with a main span of 2,800 feet which will span the whole river, and 6 lanes wide.
Yeah, that is a megaproject.
Then what is 200 miles of freeway of which such a bridge is only one component?
More like 8 miles of freeway built to connect the bridge into the freeway system.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 06, 2019, 12:30:51 AM
The argument here is that the threshold for what is considered "mega" is too low - and that if things functioned more smoothly construction of such a bridge would be small in scale compared to other things going on.
The bridge and approach freeways above are "mega."
Is the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge not a "megaproject"?
WOuld be interesting to list major bridges by the time of construction, at least down to a decade. Hudson crossings say up to Kingston, Mississippi to St. Louis, Bay area etc.
My bet is that numbers would peak about 1960s-70s, partially because major ones are built; partially because.. well, see Politico article.
Quote from: kalvado on December 06, 2019, 09:02:36 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 06, 2019, 05:48:21 AM
Is the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge not a "megaproject"?
WOuld be interesting to list major bridges by the time of construction, at least down to a decade. Hudson crossings say up to Kingston, Mississippi to St. Louis, Bay area etc.
My bet is that numbers would peak about 1960s-70s, partially because major ones are built; partially because.. well, see Politico article.
There still are some recent very large bridge and tunnel projects...
S.F.O. Bay Bridge Eastern Spans
New Tappan Zee Bridge
New Tacoma Narrows Bridge
Parallel Elizabeth River Midtown Tunnel
Parallel Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel
Parallel Thimble Shoals Tunnel
Plus the ones mentioned upthread.
Quote from: Beltway on December 06, 2019, 03:04:45 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 06, 2019, 09:02:36 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 06, 2019, 05:48:21 AM
Is the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge not a "megaproject"?
WOuld be interesting to list major bridges by the time of construction, at least down to a decade. Hudson crossings say up to Kingston, Mississippi to St. Louis, Bay area etc.
My bet is that numbers would peak about 1960s-70s, partially because major ones are built; partially because.. well, see Politico article.
There still are some recent very large bridge and tunnel projects...
S.F.O. Bay Bridge Eastern Spans
New Tappan Zee Bridge
New Tacoma Narrows Bridge
Parallel Elizabeth River Midtown Tunnel
Parallel Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel
Parallel Thimble Shoals Tunnel
Plus the ones mentioned upthread.
And a bit of quantification.
There is a list of longest bridges in Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_bridges
I selected all US ones, including 2 US-Canada ones, regardless of types - rail, highway or otherwise. Sorted by dates, and grouped by decade. Wherever there are 2 dates associated with the bridge (e.g. NB and SB spans built at different times), I used both dates.
Here is the result:
(https://i.imgur.com/Dfa0VyC.jpg)
Quote from: Beltway on December 06, 2019, 03:04:45 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 06, 2019, 09:02:36 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 06, 2019, 05:48:21 AM
Is the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge not a "megaproject"?
WOuld be interesting to list major bridges by the time of construction, at least down to a decade. Hudson crossings say up to Kingston, Mississippi to St. Louis, Bay area etc.
My bet is that numbers would peak about 1960s-70s, partially because major ones are built; partially because.. well, see Politico article.
There still are some recent very large bridge and tunnel projects...
S.F.O. Bay Bridge Eastern Spans
New Tappan Zee Bridge
New Tacoma Narrows Bridge
Parallel Elizabeth River Midtown Tunnel
Parallel Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel
Parallel Thimble Shoals Tunnel
Plus the ones mentioned upthread.
New Harbor Bridge in Corpus Christi, TX (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.8111405,-97.3991613,4439m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1)
The $802 million project, scheduled to be completed in 2023, features the construction of a 1,661 foot cable stay bridge, the longest in the United States, over a major shipping channel off the Corpus Christi Bay with a 205 foot vertical clearance, replacing the current substandard
(though Maryland's new Nice Bridge would say it's standard as the current bridge has no shoulders nor a multi-use path), narrow, step, and low navigational clearance bridge
(still a high 138 feet, but the port in the channel necessitates a larger vertical clearance). The project will also relocate the offset and substandard US-181, I-37, and TX-286 interchange outside Downtown to one single interchange where I-37 and TX-286 currently meet, and relocate a portion of the US-181 freeway on North Beach. The new bridge will feature three lanes each direction with full left and right shoulders, and a barrier separated multi-use path. In total, about 7 miles of new roadway and bridge will be constructed, along with 2 miles of I-37 and 2 miles of TX-286 reconstructed.
Project Website - https://harborbridgeproject.com/
The project will be toll free when completed.
Quote from: vdeane on December 05, 2019, 09:22:13 PM
...And yet another example: every Breezewood in PA, past and present, as well as the I-95 connection.
This isn't a can't, but rather a "don't want to". The projects themselves are fairly routine interchange construction projects. Billions are spent every year in PA on transportation, and money could simply be allocated to these projects.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 06, 2019, 07:13:35 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 05, 2019, 09:22:13 PM
...And yet another example: every Breezewood in PA, past and present, as well as the I-95 connection.
This isn't a can't, but rather a "don't want to". The projects themselves are fairly routine interchange construction projects. Billions are spent every year in PA on transportation, and money could simply be allocated to these projects.
I mean, that's kind of the point here - it's an example of a project which is not particularly challenging technically, and which would make objective and functional sense to build, but which does not happen because the political processes we've put in place make the objection of a small percentage of affected parties sufficient to stop a project.
If I-70 were to be directly connected to the turnpike, tens of thousands of motorists every day would have a couple minutes shaved off their journey, the reduced congestion would reduce fuel consumption, local air quality would improve, most crashes that happen in Breezewood currently would be prevented resulting in fewer injuries and possibly even saving lives... and the owners of a few local restaurants, gas stations, and hotels would lose some business.
The fact that the last statement in that list wins out over all the others before it is a
shining example of how "the US can't build infrastructure".
It's not like it'd even be harmful to the economy overall - the fuel, food, and lodging needs of the travelers passing through the area would not change, so any customers the businesses in Breezewood lose would become customers of some other substantively identical business along the road instead.
Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2019, 02:06:10 PM
I think you mean East Side Access, which will (some day) connect the LI RR to Grand Central Station. Massive delays, massive cost overruns.
Don't forget the Moynihan Hall expansion to Penn Station. Worse delays, massive cost overruns....
I was in Penn Station for the first time in a few years yesterday/today. The place seemed nastier than I remembered.
Quote from: Beltway on December 06, 2019, 03:04:45 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 06, 2019, 09:02:36 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 06, 2019, 05:48:21 AM
Is the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge not a "megaproject"?
WOuld be interesting to list major bridges by the time of construction, at least down to a decade. Hudson crossings say up to Kingston, Mississippi to St. Louis, Bay area etc.
My bet is that numbers would peak about 1960s-70s, partially because major ones are built; partially because.. well, see Politico article.
There still are some recent very large bridge and tunnel projects...
S.F.O. Bay Bridge Eastern Spans
New Tappan Zee Bridge
New Tacoma Narrows Bridge
Parallel Elizabeth River Midtown Tunnel
Parallel Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel
Parallel Thimble Shoals Tunnel
Plus the ones mentioned upthread.
The irony is that the Tappan Zee Bridge is a perfect example for this thread, having been stuck in planning for a rather long time while local stakeholders argued about transit connections (in particular, a rail line).
Quote from: vdeane on December 06, 2019, 09:34:30 PM
The irony is that the Tappan Zee Bridge is a perfect example for this thread, having been stuck in planning for a rather long time while local stakeholders argued about transit connections (in particular, a rail line).
The massive cost was the main reason.
$3.8 billion for 4 miles of highway.
Takes a good while to find that much funding.
Quote from: Beltway on December 06, 2019, 09:39:12 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 06, 2019, 09:34:30 PM
The irony is that the Tappan Zee Bridge is a perfect example for this thread, having been stuck in planning for a rather long time while local stakeholders argued about transit connections (in particular, a rail line).
The massive cost was the main reason.
$3.8 billion for 4 miles of highway.
Takes a good while to find that much funding.
Some history: https://www.newnybridge.com/about/
Quote
Plans for a new bridge to replace the Tappan Zee were first discussed in 1999, and over the following decade, $88 million taxpayer dollars were spent, 430 meetings were held, and 150 concepts were considered — yet still, the project did not move forward. Under Governor Andrew M. Cuomo's leadership and with the support of President Barack Obama and U.S. Department of Transportation, the project has moved from dysfunction to construction. Since October 2011, new design-build legislation was enacted, a fast tracked federal environmental review and concurrent procurement processes have been completed, a project labor agreement with construction unions was negotiated, and construction activities commenced — all with an unprecedented level of transparency and community involvement.
Quote from: vdeane on December 06, 2019, 10:58:16 PM
Some history: https://www.newnybridge.com/about/
Quote
Plans for a new bridge to replace the Tappan Zee were first discussed in 1999, and over the following decade, $88 million taxpayer dollars were spent, 430 meetings were held, and 150 concepts were considered — yet still, the project did not move forward. Under Governor Andrew M. Cuomo's leadership and with the support of President Barack Obama and U.S. Department of Transportation, the project has moved from dysfunction to construction. Since October 2011, new design-build legislation was enacted, a fast tracked federal environmental review and concurrent procurement processes have been completed, a project labor agreement with construction unions was negotiated, and construction activities commenced — all with an unprecedented level of transparency and community involvement.
The sheer cost would have a lot to do with that.
More and more large turnpike and Interstate highway bridges are "coming due" after 40, 50 or even 60 years of use, and today they are massively expensive to replace.
The NYC area also recently had the I-278 Goethals Bridge and the I-278 Kosciuszko Bridge replacements.
The Moynihan Station fiasco pushes my "this smells yucky" buttons.
East Side Access, less so. Support for that project was never really consistent.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: Beltway on December 06, 2019, 11:08:29 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 06, 2019, 10:58:16 PM
Some history: https://www.newnybridge.com/about/
Quote
Plans for a new bridge to replace the Tappan Zee were first discussed in 1999, and over the following decade, $88 million taxpayer dollars were spent, 430 meetings were held, and 150 concepts were considered — yet still, the project did not move forward. Under Governor Andrew M. Cuomo's leadership and with the support of President Barack Obama and U.S. Department of Transportation, the project has moved from dysfunction to construction. Since October 2011, new design-build legislation was enacted, a fast tracked federal environmental review and concurrent procurement processes have been completed, a project labor agreement with construction unions was negotiated, and construction activities commenced — all with an unprecedented level of transparency and community involvement.
The sheer cost would have a lot to do with that.
More and more large turnpike and Interstate highway bridges are "coming due" after 40, 50 or even 60 years of use, and today they are massively expensive to replace.
The NYC area also recently had the I-278 Goethals Bridge and the I-278 Kosciuszko Bridge replacements.
That is the part of a problem - for multiple reasons, including checks and balances discussed in the original article, the cost of infrastructure skyrocketed. Or, if you look at it from the other side, the country became poorer that 50 years ago when those bridges and roads were affordable.
Quote from: kalvado on December 07, 2019, 01:39:43 PM
That is the part of a problem - for multiple reasons, including checks and balances discussed in the original article, the cost of infrastructure skyrocketed. Or, if you look at it from the other side, the country became poorer that 50 years ago when those bridges and roads were affordable.
The country has become considerably wealthier, it's just that the cost increases in heavy construction have mushroomed.
Quote from: Beltway on December 07, 2019, 05:40:48 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 07, 2019, 01:39:43 PM
That is the part of a problem - for multiple reasons, including checks and balances discussed in the original article, the cost of infrastructure skyrocketed. Or, if you look at it from the other side, the country became poorer that 50 years ago when those bridges and roads were affordable.
The country has become considerably wealthier, it's just that the cost increases in heavy construction have mushroomed.
I think Beltway's right on this one. Costs have skyrocketed for a variety of reasons (NEPA, contracting out becoming necessary for even "dinky" jobs (e.g., pavement markings, thus causing problems with competitive bids as the work exceeds number of available contractors), design-build prioritizing schedule at higher costs, etc.)
Quote from: Rothman on December 08, 2019, 01:09:31 AM
I think Beltway's right on this one. Costs have skyrocketed for a variety of reasons (NEPA, contracting out becoming necessary for even "dinky" jobs (e.g., pavement markings, thus causing problems with competitive bids as the work exceeds number of available contractors), design-build prioritizing schedule at higher costs, etc.)
Mainly the costs of labor, materials and equipment. The cost of fuel and electricity used in producing raw goods and finished goods. The cost of raw goods such as cement, aggregate, liquid asphalt, steel, and wood forms. The cost of transporting them to construction sites. The costs of making and placing concrete and asphalt pavement and steel beams. The cost of building finished bridges. The cost of personnel.
Dramatic increases in the finished project especially between about 2005 to 2015.
Quote from: Beltway on December 08, 2019, 01:36:31 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 08, 2019, 01:09:31 AM
I think Beltway's right on this one. Costs have skyrocketed for a variety of reasons (NEPA, contracting out becoming necessary for even "dinky" jobs (e.g., pavement markings, thus causing problems with competitive bids as the work exceeds number of available contractors), design-build prioritizing schedule at higher costs, etc.)
Mainly the costs of labor, materials and equipment. The cost of fuel and electricity used in producing raw goods and finished goods. The cost of raw goods such as cement, aggregate, liquid asphalt, steel, and wood forms. The cost of transporting them to construction sites. The costs of making and placing concrete and asphalt pavement and steel beams. The cost of building finished bridges. The cost of personnel.
Dramatic increases in the finished project especially between about 2005 to 2015.
You're just talking regular inflation, essentially, with those variables (outside of personnel costs). The ones I mentioned have definitely made a huge increase in costs compared to years ago.
Quote from: Rothman on December 08, 2019, 08:56:58 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 08, 2019, 01:36:31 AM
Mainly the costs of labor, materials and equipment. The cost of fuel and electricity used in producing raw goods and finished goods. The cost of raw goods such as cement, aggregate, liquid asphalt, steel, and wood forms. The cost of transporting them to construction sites. The costs of making and placing concrete and asphalt pavement and steel beams. The cost of building finished bridges. The cost of personnel.
Dramatic increases in the finished project especially between about 2005 to 2015.
You're just talking regular inflation, essentially, with those variables (outside of personnel costs). The ones I mentioned have definitely made a huge increase in costs compared to years ago.
The heavy construction cost inflation rates have often well outpaced the general inflation index.
Dramatic increases in the costs of concrete, steel and asphalt are the drivers behind most of the elements that I listed.
Quote from: Beltway on December 08, 2019, 01:48:46 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 08, 2019, 08:56:58 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 08, 2019, 01:36:31 AM
Mainly the costs of labor, materials and equipment. The cost of fuel and electricity used in producing raw goods and finished goods. The cost of raw goods such as cement, aggregate, liquid asphalt, steel, and wood forms. The cost of transporting them to construction sites. The costs of making and placing concrete and asphalt pavement and steel beams. The cost of building finished bridges. The cost of personnel.
Dramatic increases in the finished project especially between about 2005 to 2015.
You're just talking regular inflation, essentially, with those variables (outside of personnel costs). The ones I mentioned have definitely made a huge increase in costs compared to years ago.
The heavy construction cost inflation rates have often well outpaced the general inflation index.
Dramatic increases in the costs of concrete, steel and asphalt are the drivers behind most of the elements that I listed.
The Chinese have been inhaling that stuff over that time.
Mike
It's not just heavy construction it's home too. Housing seems to be about 160 a square foot. And it's doubled inn the last decade . Seems to have had something to do with the crash but I really have not been convinced by any explanation yet. It now replaced health care as the communication driver.
Raw materials just can't be the cause . Petroleum has gone nowhere but since 1990 and widening of a 2 lane rural road to a 4 lane expressway has gone from 2 million a mile to 11 million. Btw. Wonder how that compared to other states. Material is usually asphalt.
Quote from: 3467 on December 08, 2019, 02:16:54 PM
It's not just heavy construction it's home too. Housing seems to be about 160 a square foot. And it's doubled inn the last decade . Seems to have had something to do with the crash but I really have not been convinced by any explanation yet. It now replaced health care as the communication driver.
Raw materials just can't be the cause . Petroleum has gone nowhere but since 1990 and widening of a 2 lane rural road to a 4 lane expressway has gone from 2 million a mile to 11 million. Btw. Wonder how that compared to other states. Material is usually asphalt.
Right of way costs have to be factored into it as well, if you're having to buy property. Land values have gone up, and people who won't accept the government's officer trigger eminent domain lawsuits, which add to the costs.
I'd throw in there the insistent of transportation agencies using high-priced private design consultants instead of their salaried in-house design engineers.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 08, 2019, 04:20:42 PM
I'd throw in there the insistent of transportation agencies using high-priced private design consultants instead of their salaried in-house design engineers.
Heh. Kind of fun to hear you make this statement.
The issue here is State DOTs can't get engineers for the big jobs because they can't pay the private sector salary. Also, they are restricted by lack of ability to hire if you tie up a squad or two on a big project.
That all said, I agree with you on this.
^ I think it is more some of the states may have lost the in-house knowledge for managing bigger projects through lack of proper training, and or excessive delays in filling a vacancy once it occurs (so the person who would normally be next in line for the job gets a better offer and leaves). Doesn't seem like most states have problems filling job openings once they are posted.
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 08, 2019, 10:36:45 PM
^ I think it is more some of the states may have lost the in-house knowledge for managing bigger projects through lack of proper training, and or excessive delays in filling a vacancy once it occurs (so the person who would normally be next in line for the job gets a better offer and leaves). Doesn't seem like most states have problems filling job openings once they are posted.
Lack of training? Not really. Engineers have to get their PDHs everywhere.
Again, the in-house staff would be overwhelmed by large projects at current staffing levels. You'd have to okay a large hiring of staff engineers. Just filling vacancies without increasing the number of staff won't cut it by a long shot.
At least in my experience, DOTs lose engineers to the private sector quite frequently. So, again, it comes down to matching salaries and benefits, which would be unpopular with the public...but I'm all for it (same goes for DOT lawyers in this regard). The "better offers" are always going to be there otherwise, no matter how quickly you fill the items (i.e., the day after you agree to work for the state, nothing stops you from taking a better offer at any time).
The issue Kentucky has is that many (most) of our engineers start as scholarship students, which means they go on the payroll for summer work, and are guaranteed a job when they graduate. So they start accruing years of service for pension purposes in their late teens/early 20s. An engineer, even in a non-supervisory position, makes a pretty good salary. Here, you have to work for 27 years before you're eligible for full pension benefits, but you only have to work for 20 years to be eligible for insurance when you retire. So we get a lot of engineers who will retire after 20 years, when they are in their mid- to late-40s, earning not too far below $100K when they retire, and then they can draw a pension and then go to work for a private firm that does business with the state and earn even more money while also drawing their public pension.
Someone mentioned legal services. I agree there too. My office hasn't had a staff attorney for years. After the last one left, we started contracting out all our right of way work. Other districts have attorneys, but ours hasn't been replaced.
Seems to me that government agencies should go all-in one way or the other. Either let in-house staff do all the work, or give all the work to outside firms. Why have lawyers on staff if you hire outside counsel every time you go to court?
Quote from: hbelkins on December 09, 2019, 02:50:43 PM
The issue Kentucky has is that many (most) of our engineers start as scholarship students, which means they go on the payroll for summer work, and are guaranteed a job when they graduate. So they start accruing years of service for pension purposes in their late teens/early 20s. An engineer, even in a non-supervisory position, makes a pretty good salary. Here, you have to work for 27 years before you're eligible for full pension benefits, but you only have to work for 20 years to be eligible for insurance when you retire. So we get a lot of engineers who will retire after 20 years, when they are in their mid- to late-40s, earning not too far below $100K when they retire, and then they can draw a pension and then go to work for a private firm that does business with the state and earn even more money while also drawing their public pension.
This touches on another issue here - a lot of states are cash-strapped due to pension obligations. Some have wisely rolled back the offerings for new hires to something less gravy, but it'll take a couple decades before the savings from that are realized. In the meantime, people collecting pension payments in their 40s and 50s ruin the cashflow.
The problem is especially acute in northern states where people when they retire tend to move to warmer and less expensive southern states, and thus do not reinvest their pension money in the economy of (or contribute to the tax base of) the state that is paying it.