[HN Gopher] Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much ___________________________________________________________________ Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much Author : jseliger Score : 101 points Date : 2021-12-08 19:56 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com) | wnevets wrote: | or its for similar reasons rewriting existing software can take | so much time and money. It's way easier to build a subway (or | software) when you don't have to worry about the existing needs | of the customer or people who live in or around the area. | candyman wrote: | Thirty years ago when you needed to install new computers in an | office I remember it took us weeks to get the cable (Ethernet) | installed because one contractor had to pull the cable and cut it | at each workstation, another contractor had to come and put the | connector on the cable and yet another had to come and plug the | cable into the machine. Believe me we were tempted to sneak in | one weekend and do the whole thing ourselves but were severely | warned about the consequences. So what could have been done in a | day by one or two guys took over a month because you couldn't | even schedule the second service until the first was done. I | imagine this kind of thing is everywhere when it comes to | building real infrastructure. | human wrote: | In real life it's even worse. None of the suppliers actually | show up, they ramp up the price and deliver a failing product. | Then they all blame the previous guy. | mikewarot wrote: | Once the US had railroad companies that laid rail at a mile per | day (mostly crap rail, but enough to count), that was when the | incentives were all aligned, and a huge amount of resources were | mobilized and ready to deploy. | | Once the US pulled of the completely absurd task of putting a man | on the moon and then returning him safely to earth, in less than | a decade. All the incentives were aligned, it had public support, | and a huge amount of resources were mobilized and ready to | deploy. | | We're not deploying huge resources on our infrastructure | projects, we're piecemealing them. I've got a branch rail line | going in at the end of my street. [1] The public input/planning | process went on for years, and only now are they starting to | relocate utilities, put up fences, etc. There's no one entity in | charge of all the layers of the project, it's all hired | contractors and inter-agency cooperation. It will be done, likely | in 3 years or so. This line is a total of about 9 miles long for | about $945 Million. | | The worst part about it for me is the insidious nature of the | funding they're using. They're doing "Tax Increment Financing" | which means that any increase in property tax revenues | theoretically caused by the "improvement" of my house go to pay | off the construction bonds. | | Let's say there is NO improvement, but inflation doubles taxes in | the next decade. The town now gets the same dollar amount, but | half of the funding it used to get, and the rest goes to the bond | holders. This will strangle our schools which depend on local | real estate taxes. | | [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lake_Corridor | | PS: Just across the state line is a defunct Country Club, which | is in close enough to the station to qualify for "TIF" | improvements, and the husband of the local State Representative | pushing for the project, _just happens_ to be the a real estate | developer interested in said property. | [deleted] | OldHand2018 wrote: | And don't you just love that the trains they'll be running will | consist of end-of-life Metra coaches that they're paying to | have refurbished? | | https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/ct-ptb-n... | | These are the new Metra coaches, BTW: | | https://chi.streetsblog.org/2021/01/13/metra-board-chooses-n... | caeril wrote: | > pulled of the completely absurd task of putting a man on the | moon and then returning him safely to earth, in less than a | decade | | At a congressional allocation level, this was all pork, too. | The vast majority of this project went to politically-connected | contractors, subcontractors, etc. Not much has changed, except | for one critical factor: | | We were competent in the 20th century. All of the engineers, | machinists, metallurgists, and yes, even management of the | Apollo project had a job to do. Their personal political | opinions, sexual proclivities, or social media clout had | nothing at all to do with accomplishing the mission. And so, it | got done. | | We're not that people anymore. | vdance wrote: | Strange question, maybe? I'm an expat living in Romania and I | always appreciate and marvel at the efficiency of Romania to | have/enable providers to sell an unlimited 4G mobile service | plan, that (for me) also works in the middle of nowhere here in | RO for 5 euros per month. Thoughts? BTW, it makes buying a | service plan in KS, USA that barely works in various areas feel a | bit like a scam... | nine_k wrote: | I'd compare average household incomes. | | US mobile carriers just know they can charge more, and people | will be able to pay. | ducttapecrown wrote: | A service plan in the US probably does cover a larger amount of | total area than on in Romania, though. | missedthecue wrote: | One thing the article misses is that construction worker | productivity has been on the downtrend for decades | | https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_600,c_limit,f_auto,q_... | Naac wrote: | Please follow up to the article/source of this graph. | missedthecue wrote: | https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/what-happened-to- | construct... | m0llusk wrote: | This article is toxic garbage. | | The best example of this is how the NYC Second Avenue subway | project is cited as an example of costs out of control. This | project was initially proposed around a hundred years ago and | over time was repeatedly rejected as being far too expensive to | ever make sense and then raised again and again for | consideration. At the time the work started there was a hundred | years of literature going into detail about the many complexities | involving other power, water, and sewer infrastructure as well as | multiple other subway lines and difficult geological constraints. | Well before any work was done it was extremely well established | that a Second Avenue subway could only ever be astronomically | expensive. | | Taking a project that was refused for a hundred years because of | the apparent extreme difficulties and using that as an example of | how US infrastructure costs too much is blatant manipulation. The | nearest popular comparison I can think of would be saying that | American military efforts cost too much because D-Day was | shockingly expensive. Military conflicts don't work that way and | neither does infrastructure construction. | asdff wrote: | Replace the second avenue subway with any other major passenger | rail line built in the US in the last ten years, look at the | costs per mile of track laid, and see that this is not some | unique geological issue with manhattan but a national issue | with the ability to cheaply and quickly construct capital | improvements. | Shacklz wrote: | Reading comprehension. They may or may not have picked an | unfortunate example to make their point, but that by no means | refutes their initial statement: | | > Mile for mile, studies show the U.S. spends more than all but | five other countries in the world on public transit, and more | on roads than any other country that discloses spending data. | rootusrootus wrote: | I still remember when Oregon paid $175M to _plan_ the new I5 | bridge across the Columbia River, only for the entire plan to | collapse. That is close to 40% of what the nearby Glenn Jackson | I205 bridge cost _in total_. | | $114M of that went to one contractor (and their subs). | bearjaws wrote: | I am of the opinion that continuing to build out all these long | 'runs' of infrastructure to serve a even more spread out populace | is a dead end. Where I live we spent tens of billions expanding | highway infrastructure, and it has not improved the lives of | anyone meaningfully, traffic is as bad as its ever been. | | We need to spend more money creating better metropolitan areas | that people want to live in, rather than using tax payer money to | support fewer and fewer people. | criddell wrote: | > We need to spend more money creating better metropolitan | areas that people want to live in, rather than using tax payer | money to support fewer and fewer people. | | I suspect the current trend is in the opposite direction. If | self-driving cars ever become a real thing, it's all over for | team urbanization. | | If there was unlimited money, how would you even start to fix | cities? A big part of the attraction to living in the 'burbs or | beyond is cheap space and very little noise pollution. | wilkommen wrote: | Nearly all of the noise pollution in cities is due to cars | and trucks. Reducing the number of cars and trucks on the | road in cities by developing viable alternatives to driving | (like walking and biking and light rail), allowing cities to | build denser, and then restricting non-emergency, non- | delivery car traffic in those dense areas would pretty much | fix the affordable housing crisis and traffic and the sprawl | problem all at the same time. All while keeping the city nice | and quiet, and cheap. | munk-a wrote: | > If self-driving cars ever become a real thing, it's all | over for team urbanization. | | Urbanization is more than just hatred of vehicles - Europe | has managed to development walkable cities where cars are | significantly less convenient than other modes of transport - | even if the cars are automated they're going to continue to | be suboptimal compared to well planned and zoned cities. At | the heart of the issue is whether a city is oriented toward | foot traffic or optimized for car storage - America leans the | latter way and it's pretty darn weird since, outside of the | central south (Arizona, Texas and such) - most people would | prefer a ten minute walk to five minute drive. | amalcon wrote: | The _particular_ project highlighted in the article isn 't one | of those, though. Somerville (one of the cities reached by the | extension) has the highest population density in the state of | Massachusetts, and I think it's something like top 20 in the | United States by that metric. This is not an "even more spread | out populace", it's linking a reasonably dense bedroom | community to a regional commercial hub. | dntrkv wrote: | I don't see how this is relevant to this discussion. NYC is | plenty dense yet it has the same issues with cost. | fennecfoxen wrote: | NYC has much different issues with cost. You're paying for | bad management that does long term projects as a series of | short term projects and lets all the contractors go in | between, for instance. You're paying the union for the right | to use a tunnel boring machine, and you have an oiler | watching your cranes because it's still 1910 and that's a | full-time position. You're paying to move legacy | infrastructure out of the way. You're paying to mine out | cavernous underground subway stations through small shafts | because apparently that's how America and America only | designs the stations. I could go on. | dntrkv wrote: | My point is that OP's comment is not relevant. It's not | like the costs are high per capita, the costs are high per | mile. In which case, the population density doesn't matter. | joe_the_user wrote: | This is one of the key points. The US isn't just spread-out but | oriented to solving it's problem by spreading out more. And | this paradigm has effectively become unsustainable. | | However, that's not the only factor at play here. Part of thing | that makes spreading out the population look like a reasonable | strategy is the mess involved in building in existing cities. A | lot here is "soft" corruption - local government treats public | grants as candy to give out to their friends and particular | processes described in the article are just _ways_ to do this. | Kye wrote: | How northeast Metro Atlanta has developed: | | "Wow, I hate the city! Time to move in the direction of Lake | Lanier." | | "I hate driving to the city for everything. Let's build a | Target and a Publix." | | "How about a mall?" | | "Wow, I hate the city! Time to move in the direction of Lake | Lanier." | | Some people are pulled into the gravity well of Athens, and | they're ending up in Braselton and Winder. Others are going | toward the smaller cities closer to the perimeter now that | development has essentially bumped up against the border with | South Carolina. I saw my first Tesla when I went through | Johns Creek in 2016, so I assume it's a hub of tech worker | migration in 2021. | R0b0t1 wrote: | A lot of things appear unsustainable because the income of | builders is inflated with fed money. I don't think much will | improve until a normal person can afford to build a house | again. | rictic wrote: | > it has not improved the lives of anyone meaningfully, traffic | is as bad as its ever been | | The latter does not imply the former. If the increased | infrastructure means that more people can live and work in an | area, then even if the traffic for each person in that area is | exactly as bad as it was before, it still helped those people | who took the option to move there. | | We do not build infrastructure that it might stay idle. Compare | "we upgraded our internet to gigabit but we're seeing a similar | utilization ratio, therefor the upgrade didn't improve the | lives of anyone in the home". | BurningFrog wrote: | If you double your highways and traffic stays as bad, your | highway system is delivering twice as much transportation. | | That _is_ a clear improvement. | francisofascii wrote: | Not really. Doubling your commute length is not an | improvement. I have noticed places with heavier traffic tend | to have shorter distances to your destination. So your total | time is the same regardless. | rictic wrote: | Life is more than just commute time. When commuting further | distances you have more options of where to live and where | to work. | trylfthsk wrote: | Chuck Marohn did my favorite exploration of this issue in "The | Growth Ponzi Scheme"[0]. I wish this was front and center in | the Zeitgeist. | | [0]https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ | dantheman wrote: | Corruption | Finnucane wrote: | Which never happens in Europe. | carabiner wrote: | How was China able to blanket their entire country in high-speed | rail in less time than it'll take to a build a single line in | California? Is it just more manpower? | danny_codes wrote: | No, it's entirely politics and policy. | | California has an extremely cumbersome legal baggage that drags | against public projects. Strong public unions, poorly | implemented environmental protection laws, and a legal code | that enables rampant NIMBYism are, IMO, the main limiting | factors for Californian growth. | | We could today pass legislation that circumvented all of this | nonsense, and we would see HSR rapidly built across CA. | | I would guess that for these sorts of projects the actual | building part is relatively cheap and simple: it's the endless | legal battles, plan changes, and political maneuvering that | balloons cost. | | China doesn't have this problem. If the CCP is unified on some | policy, no local protectionist politicians can slow them down. | carabiner wrote: | Yeah, and I know China + civil rights etc. I wonder what | specific civil rights abuses occurred in building their HSR? | Was it similar to the US use of eminent domain to acquire | land for building the interstate highways? Maybe we should | bring that back. | | I'm seriously in awe of the Chinese government these days. In | 30 years, they went from a raw labor and manufacturing | country, to landing rovers on Mars. They built new hospitals | in days during the pandemic, and will soon be deploying brand | new nuclear reactors. They'll probably have a dozen by the | time we approve one. In the US, we're having national debates | over whether horse dewormer cures COVID. We sound like a | laughingstock of irrational, argumentative kids. I can't | believe it. | | I see China had a HSR crash that killed 40. That seems | comparable in governmental fuckups to the FAA oversight with | the 737 MAX (killed 346). | pxeboot wrote: | I have worked on government IT projects. A long standing joke for | writing quotes was "For local/state government, add a zero. For | the feds, add two zeros". This wasn't entirely accurate, but | often close. | Shadonototra wrote: | because we are animals stuck on a little dying planet and we | believe money is what gonna save us | | we'll transcend humankind the day we stop trying to profit from | each other or worry about "how much it'll cost" | | capitalism and its market don't want your street to look nice if | it's not gonna make them generate profit, even if it makes you | happy | | the market doesn't want it! | zip1234 wrote: | If you are interested in this topic, a good follow on Twitter is | Marco Chitti--he compares reasons for high costs of | infrastructure in US to other countries: | https://twitter.com/ChittiMarco | | One of the things he mentions is lack of use of prefab: | https://twitter.com/ChittiMarco/status/1460674103464140801 | alkonaut wrote: | > Dialing back citizens' rights to participate in public projects | would seem politically unfeasible. | | So is having design processes decoupled from project budgets. | | Just restrict the participation to budget neutral things. The | political decision to build something and what it can cost can't | be followed by another process where it snowballs to 5x the cost? | sofard wrote: | I was a management consultant ages ago and worked on large | capital projects. In my experience (as the article mentions) it | was a mix of: | | 1. Red tape & public "input" 2. Layers of contractors and | subcontractors, each taking their slice 3. No real incentives for | governments to be cost sensitive. Usually capital projects last | well into the next administration. 4. Too many cooks in the | kitchen and consultations | mistrial9 wrote: | I have seen some public transportation work up close in the USA | -- "me first" and competition between different teams ate up | quite a bit of the (expensive) time.. lots of very competent, | skilled people and also quite cynical and profit-seeking | management. The actions of management were sometimes directly | contradictory to recommendations by hard-working staff. Worse, | management that tried to get things done quickly were pushed | out by others who were better at looking good (or something | else I dont know about). | | The old expression "we have the worst system in the world, | except for all the others" .. comes to mind | | edit- I would like to point to NORESCO in particular as a | sponge-like entity with a long history of failed, expensive | projects and a long pipeline of new funding, based on what I | saw with my own eyes. | joe_the_user wrote: | _The old expression "we have the worst system in the world, | except for all the others" .. comes to mind_ | | That's what (I think) Winston Churchill said about democracy | (might be true there). But here, I think you can just "we | have the worst system". Period. The US has a variety of | sectors (public works, health care, etc) which aren't just | bad but fated to get worse and worse through both through the | particular way US ruling interests deal with each other. Each | solution introduces more pork interests since each solution | follows the haphazard paradigm. | | For example; I think Yimby ("yes in my back yard") proposals | have aimed to facilitate development in at transit hubs, a | worthy seeming cause. But since there's no California state | transit plan, this approach has to define "transit hub" | haphazardly - "there's currently a bus stop there". This | allows those aiming to sink a development to do so by | removing the bus stop. Or oppositely, allows someone to | facilitate a development by adding an otherwise unneeded bus | stop. I'm not sure if this approach was implemented but just | proposal illustrates the inherent problem of trying to solve | transfic/housing/development problems by tossing random | legislation at them. | czzr wrote: | I think in the case of US infrastructure spend it's more like | "we have the best system in the world, except for all the | others". | ska wrote: | > "we have the worst system in the world, except for all the | others" .. comes to mind | | Wouldn't that imply the US system has better execution, not | just higher costs? | Traster wrote: | Yeah my first reaction to this was "Oh it's going to be the | public". Because the US has strong rights and legal system | basically anyone can come along and considerably screw up a | project just by claiming some endangered bat is living in the | path of it, or some economic harm will be done, or some | community will be damaged, it's far easier to just to just | stick planning notice on display in the bottom of a locked | filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the | door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.' | | A great example of this is in the UK where the main road going | east to west from london to cornwall is a single carriage way | with 2 lanes going past one of the country's most historic | sites (stone henge). It's a fucking disaster. So the plan is to | build a _massive_ tunnel under stone henge to help traffic and | remove the blotch on this area of historic importance. It 's | expected to cost PS1.7Bn but it's already been completely tied | up in legal fights, it was proposed over 25 years ago (when it | was already desparately needed). Essentially plenty of people | either don't want it built at all (presumably just accepting | that we'll never ever be able to have economic in england west | of stonehenge) or they want a tunnel that is several times | longer than the proposal sending costs and construction time | _soaring_. | | What you _could_ do, if you were Turkey, you could just built a | 12 lane motorway and shove stonehenge a few miles north. It 'd | be cheaper. | davidw wrote: | These are all things, but they're things in other countries, | too. France has strong unions and subcontractors and | bureaucrats and all of that. And yet it costs less there. | Symmetry wrote: | French bureaucracy has the expertise in house to do high | level planning rather than having a subcontractor do it. | They're also a lot more insulated than US bureaucracies from | the vagaries of political turnover. And they're more often | dealing with laws written ahead of time rather than things | that can't be decided without a court decision. | teknofobi wrote: | > 1. Red tape & public "input" | | > [...] and bureaucrats and all of that. | | On a recent episode of the Ezra Klein show, Jerusalem Demsas | argued that part of the problem is that the bureaucrats in | the US are too constrained in their powers, so e.g. when | weighing an infrastructure project against wildlife | protection laws, it's not a bureaucratic organisation making | a final decision on how to proceed with minimal impact, but | it's private organised interest groups litigating without any | limits on re-litigation, and a ruling that does not | necessarily weigh the public interest of having projects | proceeding towards completion. | davidw wrote: | I don't do podcasts, but I read that that was a really good | one, and everything she writes about housing is fantastic. | | https://www.vox.com/authors/jerusalem-demsas | atlasunshrugged wrote: | I think it was this article that's most relevant? | https://www.vox.com/22534714/rail-roads-infrastructure- | costs... | ska wrote: | I think it's a mistake to think of european unions and | american unions as "the same thing". Relationships with | unions in the US seem much more adversarial than there, on | average. | | As you say, there are politics, labor relations, etc. in | europe too - I wonder if they are just better at cooperating | on this sort of project for some reason? | earthscienceman wrote: | What? This could only be so naively said by someone who has | never lived in a heavily prop labor socialist country like | France. Les greves are terribly adversarial and a near | constant aspect of labor negotiations. | | The only way they could be considered better, in the way | you imply, is that the unions are considered something to | _negotiate_ with instead of something to destroy. | davidw wrote: | I think that's what makes it interesting and important to | figure out on a deeper level. Simplistic answers don't seem | to explain the problem. | joe_the_user wrote: | My broad impression is that in the EU and the US, a given | project is a "meal" that all the interests involved will take | a cut out of. | | But in the EU or elsewhere, the "cut" the interests will take | is just financial, the project will be designed for cost- | efficiency by competent architects and engineers and it's | just that the different interests will be paid off with money | to make things happen. | | In the US, the spread-out state and administrative structure | results in a situation where each interest gets it's cut | through its ability to make some small change or demand some | particular process. A lot of this involves a lot of | adversarial relations, some of them intended to stop | corruption but which actually result inefficiency and | corruption (complex bidding processes legal repercussions for | failure to adhere to bid etc. etc.). | | California spending $3 billion _planning_ ( "planning") a | high speed rail system is good example. A lot of that | involved buying land whose value had inflated. | adamcstephens wrote: | I think in-sourcing management expertise to the public agencies | would save a lot of money. Management consultants are expensive | and their incentives are in conflict with public projects. | phenkdo wrote: | IMO #2 takes the cake (rest is all icing) | lotsofpulp wrote: | In my experience with construction projects, legal costs and | liabilities take the cake. Once something is in court, there | is zero telling how long and how much money it takes to | resolve. | jltsiren wrote: | This is interesting from a foreign perspective. I still | follow urban planning in Helsinki, Finland. Major public | projects always face opposition and go to court, but it's | not a big deal. | | Because zoning plans and similar project plans are | decisions made by public officials, all complaints about | them go to the administrative court system. Administrative | courts don't care about the substance of the argument. | (That's for elected representatives.) They only determine | if the officials followed all appropriate regulations and | decisiomaking processes. Going to administrative court is | cheap enough and fast enough that the costs and delays are | usually included in the project plan. | | Sometime the court overturns the decision, delaying or | canceling the project. Sometimes their justifications are | stupid and sometimes there are unintended consequences. | Regardless, the system more or less works most of the time. | [deleted] | jimt1234 wrote: | I'm leaning towards #3. There just doesn't seem to be any | real incentive for governments to look for cost savings, like | it's all Monopoly money. | Shacklz wrote: | That's the case for other countries too but they still | manage to do better | nicoburns wrote: | That seems like a political culture issue rather than | something inherent to governments. If you really care about | doing good in the world (isn't that the whole point of | politics?) then you have a huge incentive to save on costs | as any money saved can be put to good use elsewhere. | [deleted] | AlexTWithBeard wrote: | My pet theory: because this is not a priority? | | The NY ex-governor Cuomo. He's not without dark spots, but a lot | of infrastructure projects have been running during his time in | the office: Moynihan hall train, LIRR double-track to Ronkonkoma | and so on. | | Nevertheless, it was decided that moral qualities of the governor | are more important than his ability to push projects to | completion. | | So nope, Mr. Cuomo, you're not perfect. Get out. _And there is a | queue of smart, nice, efficient and highly moral people lined up | outside to become NY governors._ | HanShotFirst wrote: | Cuomo literally harrased his own highly competent NYC Transit | director into resigning, for disagreements and stealing the | spotlight. The LGA airtrain is an expensive boondoggle that is | thankfully looking like it will be canceled. He was into large | statement projects he could slap his name on regardless of | actual need because he was clearly a huge narcissist. | AlexTWithBeard wrote: | Why LGA airtrain would be a boondoggle? AFAIR, right now | there's no way of getting to LGA without risking being stuck | in the traffic for an hour. | slymon99 wrote: | "Moral qualities"? We aren't talking about Cuomo cheating on | his wife, he used his position of authority to sexually harass | eleven women. | AlexTWithBeard wrote: | Then fine the shit out of him, install a watch to make sure | it doesn't happen again and let him keep doing things he's | good at. | [deleted] | notreallyserio wrote: | I don't like the idea of having to hire staff to monitor | someone 24x7 to ensure he stays on task and doesn't drive | away coworkers and employees with harassment just because | "he's good at" part of his job. That doesn't make any | sense. | AlexTWithBeard wrote: | Checks and balances is a staple of any functioning | system. | neonate wrote: | https://archive.md/XQQZc | the-alchemist wrote: | For those interested in a real deep dive, and I mean, deep, check | out the blog https://pedestrianobservations.com/construction- | costs/. And the comments are super informative! | | It makes a lot of complex analyses using the best cost | information available, and compares projects across countries, | states, geography, politics, etc. I'm impressed by the technical | engineering analyses. We IT people could learn a thing or two. ;) | | Like, "this subway project in NYC cost $N billion USD, which | cannot be compared to this subway project in France, which cost | $M billion EUR, because of the diameter of the tunnel used and | the composition of the dirt under the ground." | darkwizard42 wrote: | Why aren't contracts to build the projects tightly written to | avoid cost ballooning? | | When a service is to be provided at a certain cost, it should be | provided at certain cost. Some contingencies should be built in | (if something gets discovered that was unexpected) but how on | earth does every municipal project seem to have so much invested | in budget oversight and contractors overbilling or needing | overtime to make things happen. | | If someone is painting my house, I get a quote for the job and | the date it will be completed. I don't find myself paying them | more unless its for something outside of what we specified | together and they quoted. | | Building on government contracts should be solid money but it | seems like every time the taxpayer gets fleeced and the end | result is barely functional/impactful. | vkou wrote: | > Why aren't contracts to build the projects tightly written to | avoid cost ballooning? | | Because no legitimate construction firm will take on a project | where they are saddled with 100% liability for overruns. | | Not without very generously padding their estimated costs, that | is. | | Which will make them lose the initial bid. | | A fly-by-night operator may want to take that project, and when | things go sour, they'll leave you with a half-built bridge, and | an empty shell of a corporation that you won't squeeze a dollar | out of. | dsr_ wrote: | One alternative would be to have a public works department | which does the work itself. It would hire people, plan, write | specs, buy or lease equipment, buy materials, do the work. | | That, however, would be socialism, so it can't be done, even | though it's done on a smaller scale in every US city for | issues starting at road repair and going on up. | cmckn wrote: | I think there's a real argument for the efficiency of | outsourcing many aspects of public works projects. But I | think you make a good point, that doing things in-house is | sometimes the right move. Obviously this applies to more | than turnpikes :) | sjwalter wrote: | One of the tricks Robert Moses had when he was basically | building modern NYC was he had on staff a top-notch crew | capable of the end-to-end implementation of whatever | project proposal he came up with. Designers, engineers, | project managers, accountants, even down to the guys | digging the holes. | | Not sure what happened and why cities stopped having all | these capabilities on staff (seems obvious that e.g. NYC | will eternally need a huge amount of people like this). | tastyfreeze wrote: | Moving away from cost-plus contract funding is something that | is needed but is an enormous fight. Every government contractor | loves cost-plus. Bid low on cost to get the contract then just | keep amending the contract with added cost. | | I agree that all government contracts should be fixed bid. It | is wholly the contractor's responsibility to determine if they | can be profitable on the contract or not. We should not be on | the hook for added cost. | nradov wrote: | It's fine for most infrastructure projects to be firm fixed | price (with bonus incentives for early completion or higher | quality). But there are other projects for which cost plus is | the only viable option. Sometimes there's so much technical | risk and uncertainty that no sane contractor would even | submit a fixed price bid. | PeterisP wrote: | As the article goes into detail, a big factor of costs | ballooning is that the municipalities explicitly ask for much | more stuff than initially planned - as you say "unless its for | something outside of what we specified together and they | quoted", which is the exact thing happening in the examples | provided by the article. | | You ask for A, get quoted $X; but if then after the public | input (which, as the article states, can't be avoided or its | suggestions refused, because votes and politics) you decide | that you actually want A+B+C+D+E+F+G (it's not an exaggeration, | it's common for the "add-ons" to require multiple times more | work than the initially requested thing) then you're not | getting that for $X no matter how you write the contract. | | If someone is painting your house and halfway through the | process you discuss with your family that it needs to be a | different color (redoing the already painted parts) and the | kids room also needs to be painted, and oh, they should fix the | porch before painting it, that's going to result in cost | ballooning far above the quote. | lotsofpulp wrote: | It is easy to say, and tough to do. | | Big projects have almost unlimited liability. The entities | involved can get taken to court for pollution concerns, | environmental concerns, get caught up in local politics. And | once something is in the courts, the whole timeframe is | completely up in the air. | | One of the places I lived had Walmart wanting to build a | Walmart Supercenter, and convert their current Walmart into a | Sams Club. The non Walmart grocery store (which was garbage in | terms of quality and service) and a Sams Club competitor tied | up Walmart in court over the status of some endangered garden | snake. | | It was obvious nonsense, but it would have taken so long to | untangle legally that Walmart said screw it and moved on. | intrepidhero wrote: | Firm fixed contracts seem like the way to go, until you try it. | What happens is you get a bunch of contractors in a bidding war | trying to undercut each other until the actual bid is below | cost. That's not sustainable so what happens then? The winner | will cut every possible corner to try to make a profit margin | and read the contract in the narrowest way possible so they can | hit the government with a fat change order. Quality of the | product takes a nose dive and final cost still isn't | controlled. | | On the other hand, time and materials contracts have exactly | the problems you would expect. | | I honestly don't know how these things should be done so that | taxpayers get the most value for their dollars. But I do know | it's more complex than just "fixed price contracts." | nradov wrote: | For firm fixed price contracts you can write in requirements | for passing independent inspections. And incentives for | quality measures. For example I've seen road paving contracts | that paid a bonus for achieving a certain level of | smoothness. Of course writing a good contract requires deep | technical and legal expertise which some local governments | simply lack. | mjevans wrote: | Maybe have the military operate as a contractor as well and | any 'profits' they'd make go towards the general federal | budget? At the least it's then a bid by an open party with | incentives that should be aligned to public service to | compare all the other bids against. | dymk wrote: | Where's the evidence that contractors will bid below-cost? | Even if some do, they'll just go out of business, and the | contractors who know how to do basic math will live another | day. | notreallyserio wrote: | Meanwhile you end up with a bridge half-built because the | cheapest contractor went bust. | | (I don't know if contractors bid below cost.) | jacobr1 wrote: | Another model is having a government run project, with all | the employees direct hires of the relevant government | department. Though that has its own downsides. | | One model I haven't heard of, is the government as general | contractor, hiring and managing the subs directly. I could | imagine a hybrid mode like this could work. | lakecresva wrote: | Those things have legal remedies, the US legal system has | just decided that the investor class should be absolved of | any risk or liability. If you intentionally underbid to win a | contract, you've committed fraud and are supposed to go to | prison to disincentivize the next guy. If you are a | contractor and are incapable of giving a good faith estimate | of your costs, you're supposed to go out of business. If you | cut a bunch of corners to stay under budget and do not render | satisfactory performance, you're liable for breach of | contract (and are supposed to go out of business). | | The first two options have been removed from the toolbox of | American government almost entirely. | vkk8 wrote: | This is what I'm also wondering. What is the point of making a | contract in the first place if the price quoted is not binding? | If the provider needs more material or manpower or whatever | than expected, then it should be their fucking problem and not | the clients. The possibility of unexpected stuff happening | should, of course, also be taken into account in the initial | price quote since the provider should be much better at | estimating the probability of something happening than the | client. | g_p wrote: | The problem when dealing with government or public works is | that the provider simply isn't better at estimating that | probability, since they aren't empowered to bulldoze ahead. | | The contractor can accurately price in (and insure against) | technical risks like the risk of accidentally striking a | cable while digging, and they can mitigate this as well | (looking at the quality of cable mapping data, using | detectors etc.) | | What the contractor can't factor in is all the (local) | government politics and bureaucracy. Where things fall on the | financial year calendar, whether they will have to spend the | money before or after April, whether they will have to pause | works because a resident legally challenges the works, | whether the client has even asked for the right thing, or if | it will emerge while planning the work that they have made | major errors etc. | | When dealing with a well-specified, fixed-scope piece of | work, you are right - the provider should eat that. When | dealing with an uninformed non-expert customer (i.e. most | public sector or government contracts), nobody in their right | mind would take on that risk, except some of the big | government outsourcing contractors, who would all quote | insane prices based on past "actual costs" after factoring in | all the nonsense from previous work. | 7952 wrote: | And there will be bias. The contractor will be optimistic | about their own abilities and excited about the project. | The client will become emotionally attached to the end | goal. And everyone will underestimate the overhead of | communication. Human factors apply and cannot be engineered | away. | Finnucane wrote: | At least the GLX is a little further along now. The location in | the photo at the top of the article is near my house, and the new | trackbed there is complete. | ihsw wrote: | Infrastructure funding is a jobs creation program with an | occasional side-effect of providing infrastructure to the public. | igammarays wrote: | Because the US has an unlimited supply of the world's reserve | currency, so there is no incentive to be economical. | sofard wrote: | I respectfully disagree. A lot of the capital projects | mentioned in this article (like NYC subway station) are | municipal or state projects, which don't have the ability to | print money like the feds. | panick21_ wrote: | How even smart people have started to buy this 'Modern Monetary | Theory' nonsense wholesale. The same old terrible idea resold | in a new package for 1000s of years. Everytime a government | runs out of money the charlatans come out and start claiming | you can just magically print money without any issue. | buildsjets wrote: | What the US does not have though, is an unlimited supply of | time, and these increased program costs also drive longer | project schedules. I've been watching Seattle's light rail | system as it has been under development for 2 decades now - the | construction itself is really quite fast! But a 20 year delay | between voter approval/funding and breaking ground on the new | construction is untenable. Example: South Kirkland extension | breaks ground for construction in 2035, it was approved by | voters in 2016. | | https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/s... | notJim wrote: | US infrastructure spending is heavily cost-constrained though. | Your argument would hold up if we were building loads of new | infrastructure at enormous cost, but instead we are not | building enough because the costs are too high. | distribot wrote: | But the local governments executing these projects have very | fixed budgets. They can't just fire up the money printer. | fdgsdfogijq wrote: | Local government officials have no real incentive to get the | most for their money. They "get the job done", but I really | doubt they are anywhere close to efficient | vkou wrote: | They would, if our democracy worked better. People care | deeply about where municipal tax money is going. | | Unfortunately, most of the time, municipal governments are | entirely controlled by an unholy alliance between local | real estate moguls, and the town's chamber of commerce, so | 'what their constituents want' is rarely a priority for | them. | distribot wrote: | I think the mayor of NYC has a strong incentive to get | credit for improving their subway system. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Perhaps surprisingly, the NYC subway is run by the MTA, | over which the mayor has no control; it's run by the | state government up in Albany. | [deleted] | rp1 wrote: | Both of my parents are in civil engineering and construction in | NYC. As an outside observer, what I see is that the management of | projects is not set up in a sustainable way and is just bad. The | heads of important departments are political appointees. Most of | the time, appointments go to political friends, not to competent | managers with extensive knowledge of the field. Also, the | assignments are constantly changing as elected officials change. | ivankirigin wrote: | NEPA | tastyfreeze wrote: | Having worked on software to track the mountain of paperwork | for NEPA compliance of road projects I agree. But, I would | expand it to just say bureaucracy or over-regulation. We can't | build a damn thing without getting approval or licenses from | multiple agencies after satisfying their every whim. Every | regulation doesn't just make the project cost more. We are also | paying for the administration and enforcement of those | regulations. We pay on both sides when it is a State DOT doing | the project. Residents of the State pay for staff to make sure | they are satisfying all the NEPA requirements and Federal staff | to make sure that the State DOT is in compliance. | jjtheblunt wrote: | ? | ivankirigin wrote: | Regulations slow the pace of building. | | Good article here: https://medium.com/cgo-benchmark/why-are- | we-so-slow-today-c3... | | Good recent discussion here, including other incentives: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzMTlBddJ-E | tastyfreeze wrote: | National Environmental Protection Act | | In other words, every infrastructure project is required to | prove that they are not harming habitats or disturbing native | cultural sites or any of the myriad other types of sites that | are protected. | KingMachiavelli wrote: | Every time any land is going to be developed where I live | (Denver/Boulder/etc.), there is always a thread on Nextdoor | advocating for people to stop it by raising environmental | concerns and putting in a ton of comments. If 1/10 projects get | canceled due to individual objections that means a lot of time | and money gets wasted. Another 4/10 projects might eventually get | built but only after long drawn out discussions and after many | iterations to address individual concerns making the project less | standardized and more expensive. | | The remaining projects that built aren't really infrastructure | projects rather they are statement pieces. Instead of building a | $200M subway station we build a $1B community gathering area that | includes a subway station. The optimistic hope is that these | larger projects will encourage public adoption and support for | more of these types of projects but in reality their costs spiral | out of control and construction takes far too long at which point | the public is just tired. | davidw wrote: | The article hints at this NIMBYism. Many of the other things | that factor in are not unique to the US. Government waste, | bureaucracy, etc... are all things in other wealthy countries | too, but NIMBYism and 'public input' seems to carry more weight | in the US. | spoonjim wrote: | It all comes down to the ease of suing people in the US. Because | of that, everyone gets insurance, the insurance companies mandate | all kinds of inspections, all vendors need to be certified and | bonded, and go through a 4000 hour licensing process, etc. | | Probably 500 fewer people die a year of workplace accidents and | similar because of all these rules, but hundreds of thousands die | of air pollution and economic distress due to the low return on | the dollar. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Doesn't help that people have short memories. Remember the big | dig? Textbook pork filled boondoggle in every way. | | Yet here we are 10yr later and there's no shortage of people with | goldfish memories trying to defend it because "well the greenway | is kind of cool". | | Government isn't idiots. They know that you'll forget. So they | spend money without a care in the world and then give non answers | when asked. Time works its magic and they get off scott free | never being held accountable for wasting public resources. | systemvoltage wrote: | It's dysfunctional on purpose. Media is busy with identity | politics and trumpism, no checks and balances with efficiency of | the government. Doesn't bring in the clicks. Local media is | extinct so local municipalities get a free pass. | bell-cot wrote: | Big picture answer - because the U.S has very little constituency | for economical, timely, and competent construction of actual | working infrastructure. Vs. political posturing, profiteering, | NIMBYism, etc. - all of _those_ have large, savvy, and highly | motivated constituencies. | InTheArena wrote: | This misses a fundamental point - the goal of this is not to fund | infrastructure - it's to fund people who vote for people who vote | for infrastructure. There is zero incentive to run on time and | on-budget, and every incentive to milk more government cash, so | that people in power can get election contributions, that stay in | power. | | If you also deny money to people who didn't vote for you, then | all the better as well. See the union restrictions on EV money in | this bill. Why help GM, when you can help GM and hurt Tesla, all | in one! | | Doesn't matter if it's (R) or (D), or union versus non-union. | It's profit-seeking across the board. | wolverine876 wrote: | I've seen these cynical rants many times, but can you back any | of the claims up with anything substantive? For example, that | there is no difference between parties? It's important, because | it disarms us; if we don't differentiate between the more and | less corrupt, we can't improve the situation. | | There is greed and corruption in the world, but that's not all | there is. There are plenty of people who want to do a good job, | who want to achieve things for society. More precisely, | everyone has a little bit of all those things, and we have the | free choice of what we pursue, the greed or the good. | | The US ranks pretty well on the scale of corruption. It's a | good way to get voted out of office (recent phenomena not | withstanding), or go to jail. | markus_zhang wrote: | Maybe unrelated but there was a report about the construction | related corruption in Quebec. I read it back in the year 2015 | and there was a lot of interesting information. | | For example, many construction projects are given to favored | parties and government engineers who take care of those | projects will make sure that outsiders do not get the tender | offer. Occasionally someone from outside of the circle makes | a competent bid so there are multiple stages to persuade such | party to withdraw the bid: 1) The engineer in charge phones | the party, 2) Shady characters riding on motorcycles throw | garbage at the door of the said party, 3) I forgot what the | 3rd stage is. | | Here is the document if anyone is interested: | | https://www.apigq.qc.ca/wp- | content/uploads/2021/04/rapport_f... | smnrchrds wrote: | There is a lot of mob involvement in Quebec's construction | industry. Are you saying the reason infrastructure is | expensive in the US is mobs? | GhettoComputers wrote: | Yes, here in my city, construction is a racket. they get | unfair contracts, make them shitty, then when they break | they get another one. | Eelongate wrote: | I doubt it's organized in any large-scale sense, but | nevertheless it's very corrupt. | GhettoComputers wrote: | There is only one political party, you can see it in effect | of their governance. Locally they might do things | differently, the "land/city" way regardless of their party. | wolverine876 wrote: | You can't see the difference between the current Democratic | Party and GOP? I heard that argument for years, but now | it's like saying there's no difference between day and | night. | GhettoComputers wrote: | What changed? | | Locally you can see Democrats who would be considered | Republicans or Republicans who act like Democrats. Bob | Dole did many "democratic" things: | https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/05/us/politics/bob-dole- | dead... and Clinton was a copy of a republican. | | > Russell Republicans approached Mr. Dole in 1950 to run | for the Kansas State Legislature -- they saw the hometown | war hero as an easy sell. But he had not yet picked a | party, though his parents were New Deal Democrats. He | said later that he had signed on with the Republicans | after he was told that that's what most Kansas voters | were. | | >He opposed many of the Great Society programs of | President Lyndon B. Johnson, but he supported the Civil | Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. | | > He was most proud of helping to rescue Social Security | in 1983, of pushing the landmark Americans With | Disabilities Act of 1990 and of mustering a majority of | reluctant Republicans to support Mr. Clinton's unpopular | plan to send American troops to Bosnia in 1995. (Mr. Dole | was not wild about the deployment either, but he long | believed that a president, of either party, should be | supported once he decided something as important as | committing troops abroad.) | temp8964 wrote: | Apparently you don't see (don't want to see) the point of | the discussion. The context here is not about their | ideology or superficial talking points. It's about the | mechanism of the power structure. No matter which party | gets in control, it will always want to increase national | debt, always go for more money and more concentration of | power. This is the same mechanism applies to everybody, | anybody who doesn't want to play the game would have been | excluded from the game long time ago. Anybody who doesn't | want to play with the established power structure will be | easily destroyed. | [deleted] | nonameiguess wrote: | This seems needlessly cynical. While I don't doubt there is | some actual corruption and plenty of rent-seeking from | political donors, the cited factors of poor project management | and little expertise also play big roles, as you can observe | the exact same thing in private construction projects that are | self-funded by bad builders. I'm in a neighborhood that has | been sort of the last Dallas neighborhood near downtown still | "up and coming" and have seen this ever since moving here, from | my own builder and also from effectively everyone else. They | seem to have no relationships with tradesmen or subs, no | ability to schedule or budget. Everything is late. Work happens | in fits and starts, sometimes with nothing at all happening for | months. Projects frequently outright fail and the project sits | idle waiting for some other builder to come along and purchase | it. | | It's totally different in exurbs where they throw up new cities | seemingly overnight. Working in pre-existing cities is an | entirely different animal. There seem to be a lot reasons, but | at minimum: | | - Skilled tradesmen don't exist in large enough numbers to meet | demand | | - Subcontractors willing to do urban work are less skilled and | scrupulous | | - Onerous compliance at many overlapping levels of government | that all have jurisdiction over the same land | | - It takes forever to run new utility lines through a city | because of how disruptive digging is | | - Neighboring property owners fight you every step of the way | | - Historical preservation and community culture councils come | out of the woodworks with new requirements and restrictions on | what you're allowed to build | | That's just to build on existing empty lots you already | purchased and have a permit for. For something like this | infrastructure bill, now we're talking new roads and rail and | you need to worry about clearing whatever is already there plus | getting those permits. And work stoppages can happen for | ridiculous reasons even in the middle of nowhere. It makes me | remember being in the Army, when we trained at the National | Training Center out in the Mojave desert, we had to constantly | be on the lookout and stop if we saw an endangered desert | tortoise we weren't allowed to touch, and basically just wait | for it to get out of the way. | [deleted] | gremloni wrote: | Same old both sides argument. It's getting old when the | republicans are authoritarian snakes and are efficiently | gutting this country and filling their pockets. The modern | democrats are ineffectual and that's their only crime. | WalterBright wrote: | Another word for it is "pork-barrel". | throw0101a wrote: | > _This misses a fundamental point - the goal of this is not to | fund infrastructure - it 's to fund people who vote for people | who vote for infrastructure._ | | You say this like wanting to repair/replace infrastructure is a | bad thing. Are collapsing bridges a good thing? | | * https://fox23maine.com/news/i-team/ask-the-i-team-cars- | still... | | * | https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/2021/07/28/i-40-... | | * https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2021/sep/08/county- | sets-... | | Or perhaps locks on the Mississippi so that goods can be | transported: | | * https://wnax.com/news/180081-grassley-wants-corps-to- | priorit... | GhettoComputers wrote: | They usually take longer than 2-4 years | DennisP wrote: | From the article, Istanbul gets things built a lot cheaper, | partly because: | | > Whereas Boston might only build one new transit line every | few decades, Istanbul builds dozens. | | Seems like building dozens of times as much would even more | effectively "fund people who vote for people who vote for | infrastructure." So why aren't we like Istanbul? | munk-a wrote: | The more regular an activity is the more likely you're going | to have people specialized in it - you'll have much more | accurate estimates around costs and time to deliver since | people will have more recent experience getting it done and | you'll have infrastructure around building infrastructure. | When these projects are rarer it becomes infeasible for a | company to dedicate itself to the labour so you end up with | residential construction firms digging tunnels and laying | road foundations - and needing to learn a lot as they go or | bring in consultants. | | The more you build - especially the more you commit to build | in the future - the cheaper it will be. If everything is | billed as a one-off then the specialized labour doesn't | settle in the local market and you end up paying large costs | over and over. | [deleted] | bshoemaker wrote: | This is stupid af because there are plenty of other countries | with similar incentives & similar levels of corruption who | don't have this problem. This sort of low-effort "lol | everything bad" adds nothing to the discourse. | notJim wrote: | It's not just vote-buying, it's also buying support for the | project. They cite an example where some transit stations | started simple and became more and more complex. I've seen this | happen with local transit projects where basically some NIMBY | or supposed "community group" shows up and places all kinds of | demands that wildly increase the costs of the project. There is | either a lack of appetite or a lack of authority to tell these | groups to fuck off, which results in enormous cost overruns. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-12-08 23:01 UTC)