Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much • Hacker News Board

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#91

Post by 7952 » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 10:13 PM UTC

g_p wrote: post #28

vkk8 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bett…

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.) W…

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.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#92

Post by francisofascii » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 10:15 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #79

bearjaws wrote: post #45

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 usin…

If you double your highways and traffic stays as bad, your highway system is delivering twice as much transportation. That is a clear improvement.

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.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#93

Post by carabiner » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 10:18 PM UTC

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?

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#94

Post by nradov » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 10:19 PM UTC

intrepidhero wrote: post #34

darkwizard42 wrote: post #12

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 thi…

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.…

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.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#95

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 10:19 PM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #54

bearjaws wrote: post #45

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 usin…

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 trea…

[deleted]

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#96

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 10:19 PM UTC

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #78

slymon99 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Moral qualities"? We aren't talking about Cuomo cheating on his wife, he used his position of authority to sexually harass eleven women.

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]

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#97

Post by nonameiguess » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 10:19 PM UTC

InTheArena wrote: post #35

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. S…

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.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#98

Post by HanShotFirst » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 10:20 PM UTC

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #53

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 per…

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.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#99

Post by munk-a » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 10:22 PM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #85

InTheArena wrote: post #35

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. S…

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?

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.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#100

Post by alkonaut » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 10:23 PM UTC

> 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?