Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 272 posts

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#111

Post by lakecresva »

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.…

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.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#112

Post by GhettoComputers »

>MBTA’s dearth of staff capacity and project management expertise was a thornier issue. Despite GLX being Boston’s costliest rail project in history, only a handful of dedicated staff members were working on managing it at any given time, the researchers found.

What’s a handful? A fist sized amount is how many?

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#113

Post by wilkommen »

criddell wrote: post #88
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…

> 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…

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.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#114

Post by wolverine876 »

GhettoComputers wrote: post #108
wolverine876 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 j…

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.

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.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#115

Post by GhettoComputers »

wolverine876 wrote: post #114
GhettoComputers wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.)

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#116

Post by [deleted] »

nonameiguess wrote: post #97
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 st…

[deleted]

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#117

Post by smnrchrds »

markus_zhang wrote: post #105
wolverine876 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 j…

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 compete…

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?

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#118

Post by tastyfreeze »

ivankirigin wrote: post #32

NEPA

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.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#119

Post by ivankirigin »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #75
ivankirigin wrote: post #32

NEPA

?

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

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#120

Post by tastyfreeze »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #75
ivankirigin wrote: post #32

NEPA

?

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.

Post reply on HN