Interesting Article in the paper today

[Rebellab]

Article about bridges/roads

 

We have a bridge that crosses the Missouri River that is aging, and there was this article in the paper this morning. Now an aging bridge is nothing new, but this part is interesting.

 

From the article

Repair of the Missouri River bridge is expected to cost $4.3 million, Goeden said.

 

At a time when more and more aging bridges are showing signs of deterioration, during a push to have Americans buy more fuel-efficient cars, car pool and giving discounts for using fuels blended with ethanol, the federal highway trust fund is running low.

 

“Gas taxes are flat-out declining as more and more hybrid cars come in the market. Our system of collecting taxes for the ongoing maintenance of the road is being eroded,” Gov. Mike Rounds said. “At the federal level they recognize that, but what they don’t have is a plan to fix it.”

 

I found this interesting. We are so addicted to gas/oil that we are even addicted to the taxes that they create and have no answer to the declining funds from more ethonal use as well as hybrid cars etc.

[Savage Beatings]

“Gas taxes are flat-out declining as more and more hybrid cars come in the market. Our system of collecting taxes for the ongoing maintenance of the road is being eroded,” Gov. Mike Rounds said. “At the federal level they recognize that, but what they don’t have is a plan to fix it.”

 

I can't believe that anyone would just take this statement at face value. I would challenge that Governor to back up this statement with some hard facts. Gas taxes declining? Doubtful.

[The Irish Doggy]

I can't believe that anyone would just take this statement at face value. I would challenge that Governor to back up this statement with some hard facts. Gas taxes declining? Doubtful.

 

 

Certainly doesn't pass the smell test.

[TheShiznit]

besides, it is not my Camry that is making the roads turn to rubble. It is those big 18 wheelers and all the weight causing the damage. However, do we pay for it in higher cost of goods....or as a gasoline tax??? Either way we pay for it...cause business never will have to.

[Perchoutofwater]

All federal and state roads should be toll roads. There, that takes care of the problem, and makes those that actually use them pay for them.

[cre8tiff]

I can hardly wait for Mr. Fusion.

[Ursa Majoris]

All federal and state roads should be toll roads. There, that takes care of the problem, and makes those that actually use them pay for them.

In principle I would support this but there's the question of funding the original construction as well as the ongoing maintenance. Would the payback from a toll road be sufficient (and quick enough) to get private companies to fund roads in their entirety?

 

I oppose the idea of the public paying for road construction and then some private company making profit off it.

[The Irish Doggy]

Either way we pay for it...cause business never will have to.

 

 

So, you want LTL transportation companies to take on some added costs, and then do what with it?

[Rebellab]

I can't believe that anyone would just take this statement at face value. I would challenge that Governor to back up this statement with some hard facts. Gas taxes declining? Doubtful.

 

 

Well, I guess here we don't tax the ethanol portion of a gallon of gas. There for all the E-85 vehicles that are out there that use it are dodging that portion of the gas tax. As well as a 10% decrease for each gallon of unleaded with ethanol. Add in the shift to high milage cars and the few electric/hybrids that are running around the state, and you would have a decrease. I am not saying it is as much as he says, but in the long run we will have to find a way to replace this revenue as greener vehicles are produced.

[Savage Beatings]

My point is that despite those factors, oil consumption has been increasing in the U.S. not decreasing. But let's say that over time the revenue taken in from gas taxes does indeed decrease... why isn't the solution to cut spending instead of immediately looking for a way to replace that lost revenue?

[Perchoutofwater]

why isn't the solution to cut spending instead of immediately looking for a way to replace that lost revenue?

 

Great question, I like the way you think. Unfortunately you and I both know the answer to this.

[AtomicCEO]

How do you cut spending on road maintenance? Contracts already go to the lowest bidder, and bridge and road maintenance is pretty poor as it is...

 

Do they have extravagant executive compensation and expense accounts I don't know about?

[Ursa Majoris]

How do you cut spending on road maintenance? Contracts already go to the lowest bidder, and bridge and road maintenance is pretty poor as it is...

 

Do they have extravagant executive compensation and expense accounts I don't know about?

In Minnesota where we have the next Republican VP candidate in the form of Gov Tim Pawlenty, we let our bridges deteriorate to the point where they fall down and kill a bunch of people, then we let the contract, not seen by the public, to build a new one out to by far the highest bidder, also the only out-of-state bidder.

 

So yeah, we've got executive compensation and expense accounts up the wazoo. Welcome to the future.

[Perchoutofwater]

How do you cut spending on road maintenance? Contracts already go to the lowest bidder, and bridge and road maintenance is pretty poor as it is...

 

Do they have extravagant executive compensation and expense accounts I don't know about?

 

New construction, major renovation, and more specialized maintenance like bridge maintenance is generally contracted out. General maintenance is usually done by state, county or city crews that are over compensated and under worked like most government employees. Filling pot holes generally has a crew of 5 over paid buffoons doing what 3 could do.

[Perchoutofwater]

In Minnesota where we have the next Republican VP candidate in the form of Gov Tim Pawlenty, we let our bridges deteriorate to the point where they fall down and kill a bunch of people, then we let the contract, not seen by the public, to build a new one out to by far the highest bidder, also the only out-of-state bidder.

 

So yeah, we've got executive compensation and expense accounts up the wazoo. Welcome to the future.

 

Do you really want the lowest bidder to always be the one to build a bridge? If a road contractor skimps on the under cut and select fill you get a few pot holes, that most of us can deal with. If a bride contractor skimps on reinforcing steel or the concrete mix design, you have bridges falling down. I wounder if the bridge that recently fell down was built by the lowest bidder?

 

As a contractor I sometimes wonder about people who are always wanting the lowest bidder to get the job. Unfortunately the lowest bidder is usually the guy that makes the most mistakes. He has to make up for those mistakes somehow, either through milking change orders or skimping on materials.

[Big John]

Do you really want the lowest bidder to always be the one to build a bridge? If a road contractor skimps on the under cut and select fill you get a few pot holes, that most of us can deal with. If a bride contractor skimps on reinforcing steel or the concrete mix design, you have bridges falling down. I wounder if the bridge that recently fell down was built by the lowest bidder?

 

As a contractor I sometimes wonder about people who are always wanting the lowest bidder to get the job. Unfortunately the lowest bidder is usually the guy that makes the most mistakes. He has to make up for those mistakes somehow, either through milking change orders or skimping on materials.

If the contractor is a bride, wouldn't she have other things on her mind? Actually, the Wisconsin bridge inspection guide had a comment in one of the sections saying, "This applies only if the bride is over water."

 

 

Back to the subject.

 

Most jobs have inspectors either of the government agency or of a hired 3rd-party consulting-engineering firm inspecting the project as it is going on for items such as this. And it is policy that if on outside engineering firm is selected, the selection of this company is by qualifications only and not a bid price. But a less-experienced inspector and an unscrupulous contractor can still cause problems later on.

 

And there are instances (unsure to what extent, which is still under dispute) that contractors are often in collusion on their bids in order to drive up the costs.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Big John

[Perchoutofwater]

If the contractor is a bride, wouldn't she have other things on her mind? Actually, the Wisconsin bridge inspection guide had a comment in one of the sections saying, "This applies only if the bride is over water."

Back to the subject.

 

Most jobs have inspectors either of the government agency or of a hired 3rd-party consulting-engineering firm inspecting the project as it is going on for items such as this. And it is policy that if on outside engineering firm is selected, the selection of this company is by qualifications only and not a bid price. But a less-experienced inspector and an unscrupulous contractor can still cause problems later on.

 

And there are instances (unsure to what extent, which is still under dispute) that contractors are often in collusion on their bids in order to drive up the costs.

 

Inspectors are a joke. Half of them don't know what they are looking at, and 1/4 of those that do phone them in. I can't tell you how many jobs we've done where we call up an inspector and the inspector asks us over the phone if it is in per code and spec, and if we say yes, he will drop off the green tag on his way to lunch without ever looking at what is in place. Now granted this is probably because we work in a specific area and the inspectors are familiar with our work, and they know that we will not allow our trade contractors to cut corners. That being said how much money do you think it would cost an unscrupulous contractor to pay a guy making $40,000 a year to look the other way.

 

With regard to collusion, I find that hard to believe simply because I doubt you can find more than two contractors in any given area that are on talking terms.

 

Edit to add: Don't get me wrong there are some good inspectors out there. I actually know three or four of them. My point is that for every unscrupulous contractor out there there is an equally unscrupulous inspector out there. Private 3rd party consultants generally tend to be the engineer of record on that particular job. They usually know what they are looking at, and are better informed than a government inspector. If I was not in the business, I would demand the engineer of record to inspect every pour if someone was building something for me. Still even going the private route you run into some shady characters. I once had an engineer on a job that made a mistake, and asked me to hide it. He insinuated that if I did, he would look the other way on his inspections. I politely told him to go to hell. I've also had government inspectors tell me "we can make this a whole lot easier if you know what I mean." I knew exactly what he meant, and told him that he'd have to make his boat payment off of someone else.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Perchoutofwater

[Ursa Majoris]

Do you really want the lowest bidder to always be the one to build a bridge? If a road contractor skimps on the under cut and select fill you get a few pot holes, that most of us can deal with. If a bride contractor skimps on reinforcing steel or the concrete mix design, you have bridges falling down. I wounder if the bridge that recently fell down was built by the lowest bidder?

 

As a contractor I sometimes wonder about people who are always wanting the lowest bidder to get the job. Unfortunately the lowest bidder is usually the guy that makes the most mistakes. He has to make up for those mistakes somehow, either through milking change orders or skimping on materials.

 

 

I don't believe the lowest bidder should always get the job. It should be a function of value. In this particular case, the four submitted plans were kept unseen by everyone except a cabal of six people who suddenly emerged into the light to say the contract had been awarded to the out-of-state bidder, who was $50 million more than the next most expensive. The losing three contractors were all much the same cost. No real explanation of this whole thing has ever been provided but since Minnesotans are so supine, we're being shafted for an extra $50m on top of the fact that we wouldn't have had to pay for a new bridge at all if the cheapskate Republicans had paid for the existing one to be properly maintained when they were informed about it's crappy condition.

[wirehairman]

It is policy that if on outside engineering firm is selected, the selection of this company is by qualifications only and not a bid price.

 

Big John hit on the key point. The Interstate 35W bridge project was bid as a design-build contract. By law, engineers, architects, and other professionals must be selected upon qualifications only and cannot submit cost estimates. With a less high profile bridge project that did not require such a fast track, the design engineer would typically be selected based upon qualifications, and the construction would be competitively bid to all interested contractors, with the low bidder likely getting the job.

 

For more info, here is a link to the Minnesota DOT's page on the bridge project status.

[Perchoutofwater]

I don't believe the lowest bidder should always get the job. It should be a function of value. In this particular case, the four submitted plans were kept unseen by everyone except a cabal of six people who suddenly emerged into the light to say the contract had been awarded to the out-of-state bidder, who was $50 million more than the next most expensive. The losing three contractors were all much the same cost. No real explanation of this whole thing has ever been provided but since Minnesotans are so supine, we're being shafted for an extra $50m on top of the fact that we wouldn't have had to pay for a new bridge at all if the cheapskate Republicans had paid for the existing one to be properly maintained when they were informed about it's crappy condition.

 

So was it a design build thing? You said the four submitted plans is the reason I ask? If that is the case, is it possible that the high bidder offered a better long term solution? If that is the case then maybe the high bidder was a better value, and comparing the numbers to one another isn't comparing apples to apples. I'm not saying that is the case, but it could be. Either that or you have some serious corruption going on.

[polksalet]

In principle I would support this but there's the question of funding the original construction as well as the ongoing maintenance. Would the payback from a toll road be sufficient (and quick enough) to get private companies to fund roads in their entirety?

 

I oppose the idea of the public paying for road construction and then some private company making profit off it.

 

 

aren't owners of private companies part of the public?

[Ursa Majoris]

aren't owners of private companies part of the public?

[Jimmy Neutron]

besides, it is not my Camry that is making the roads turn to rubble. It is those big 18 wheelers and all the weight causing the damage. However, do we pay for it in higher cost of goods....or as a gasoline tax??? Either way we pay for it...cause business never will have to.

 

We pay some heavy taxes for those tractor-trailers. My average heavy use tax was about $2700 last year.

[BeeR]

 

All federal and state roads should be toll roads. There, that takes care of the problem, and makes those that actually use them pay for them.

And would probably push my employer over the edge to allow full-time telecommuting

[Skippy]

Inspectors are a joke. Half of them don't know what they are looking at, and 1/4 of those that do phone them in. This is often the sad truth but I would add that one other big reason for this is that they are way overloaded with with work.

 

That being said how much money do you think it would cost an unscrupulous contractor to pay a guy making $40,000 a year to look the other way. And again sad but true. People have got to realize that they get what they pay for. The lowest paid inspector that I deal with is a 70K plus a year guy. I find that the guys that are higher on the pay scale, some of them that I deal with are around 90k a year, seem to be much better and into their job.

 

With regard to collusion, I find that hard to believe simply because I doubt you can find more than two contractors in any given area that are on talking terms. I'm not so sure about this one, Perch. I think there is plenty of collusion going on around here. Hell, I golf in a league that is full of contractors that bid on our jobs and they are bidding against each other. There is some sort of network going on within these guys. I am 100% certain that someone feeds them information for the bidding process. I have considered going to that side a few times if only I could find a black woman to be the owner of my company.