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

31–40 of 272 posts

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#31

Post by buildsjets »

_xnmw wrote: post #4

Because the US has an unlimited supply of the world's reserve currency, so there is no incentive to be economical.

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...

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#33

Post by throwaway0a5e »

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.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#34

Post by intrepidhero »

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. 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."

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#35

Post by InTheArena »

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.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#36

Post by vkou »

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…

> 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.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#37

Post by candyman »

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.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#38

Post by czzr »

mistrial9 wrote: post #25
sofard wrote: post #10

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

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 we…

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”.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#40

Post by vkou »

fdgsdfogijq wrote: post #6
distribot wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the local governments executing these projects have very fixed budgets. They can't just fire up the money printer.

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

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.

Post reply on HN