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

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#71

Post by PeterisP » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 9:57 PM UTC

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…

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.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#72

Post by zip1234 » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 9:58 PM UTC

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

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#73

Post by dntrkv » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 9:58 PM UTC

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…

I don't see how this is relevant to this discussion. NYC is plenty dense yet it has the same issues with cost.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#74

Post by dymk » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 9:58 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.…

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.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#75

Post by jjtheblunt » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 10:00 PM UTC

ivankirigin wrote: post #32

NEPA

?

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#76

Post by fennecfoxen » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 10:01 PM UTC

dntrkv wrote: post #73

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…

I don't see how this is relevant to this discussion. NYC is plenty dense yet it has the same issues with cost.

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.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#77

Post by OldHand2018 » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 10:01 PM UTC

mikewarot wrote: post #23

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 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...

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#78

Post by AlexTWithBeard » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 10:03 PM UTC

slymon99 wrote: post #58

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…

"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.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#79

Post by BurningFrog » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 10:03 PM UTC

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.

Re: Why U.S. Infrastructure Costs So Much

#80

Post by caeril » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 10:03 PM UTC

mikewarot wrote: post #23

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,…

> 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.