3 ms·

I haven’t had time to read through the entire article in detail but my skimming indicates that the article fails to identify what I believe is the true reason f

by abduhl 8y ago

I haven’t had time to read through the entire article in detail but my skimming indicates that the article fails to identify what I believe is the true reason for tunneling increases in the USA: third parties and their ability to sue projects. This increases costs due to risk of lawsuits/challenges and excessive amounts of money put towards mitigating this risk. This continues from procurement through design and through construction. Environmental concerns have ironically been coopted into this category by NIMBY folks.

abduhl 8y ago
Also just as a point on High Speed Rail: this job was put out to bid and awarded before the owner had secured property access for the contractor (Tutor) and Tutor sought damages for this legitimate delay. Shame on Tutor for being good at playing the game that California has set up I guess?
mcphage 8y ago
> the article fails to identify what I believe is the true reason for tunneling increases in the USA: third parties and their ability to sue projects Why do you believe that's the true reason? I have no idea if it is or if it isn't, I'm just wondering where you got that from.
- abduhl 8y ago
  I have worked in the tunneling industry for nearly a decade designing, building, and procuring these jobs. Tunnels are generally the last option chosen when third parties are the concern. They are the most expensive option, by far, unless other factors (environmental, public impact, political perception, etc.) are considered. Therefore, once you arrive at the decision to use a tunnel, it becomes clear that third party impacts are a driver. From that point it becomes a battle of easement/property acquisition during procurement and with each easement or third party agreement comes promises that must be made to that third party. This translates into design mandates which need to be held and designed around which translates into additional design costs and then additional construction costs. If we don't hold to these agreements then litigation ensues, and so we would rather overdesign to reduce the risk profile and position the project better for the inevitable lawsuit. Other countries do not have similar litigation risks. Or at least, that's what my European contemporaries tell me when they come to work in America.
helen___keller 8y ago
This is addressed in section 8, "Institutions part 2: political incentives": > the political system favors NIMBYs and really anyone who complains. Infrastructure construction takes a long time and the politician who gets credit for it is rarely the one who started it, whereas complaints happen early. This can lead to many of the above-named problems, especially overbuilding, such as tunneling where elevated segments would be fine or letting agency turf battles and irrelevant demands dictate project scope.
- abduhl 8y ago
  My point is related but not exactly the same as his section 8. Litigation in America is what has driven defensive design and construction because we are ALWAYS positioning for claims, especially from third parties. The author is zeroing in on politicians and their lack of a need to take a project from "cradle to grave" and/or answer for cost overruns. This is a symptom of the problem, in my opinion.

by abduhl 8y ago

abduhl 8y ago

Also just as a point on High Speed Rail: this job was put out to bid and awarded before the owner had secured property access for the contractor (Tutor) and Tutor sought damages for this legitimate delay. Shame on Tutor for being good at playing the game that California has set up I guess?

mcphage 8y ago

> the article fails to identify what I believe is the true reason for tunneling increases in the USA: third parties and their ability to sue projects Why do you believe that's the true reason? I have no idea if it is or if it isn't, I'm just wondering where you got that from.

abduhl 8y ago
I have worked in the tunneling industry for nearly a decade designing, building, and procuring these jobs. Tunnels are generally the last option chosen when third parties are the concern. They are the most expensive option, by far, unless other factors (environmental, public impact, political perception, etc.) are considered. Therefore, once you arrive at the decision to use a tunnel, it becomes clear that third party impacts are a driver. From that point it becomes a battle of easement/property acquisition during procurement and with each easement or third party agreement comes promises that must be made to that third party. This translates into design mandates which need to be held and designed around which translates into additional design costs and then additional construction costs. If we don't hold to these agreements then litigation ensues, and so we would rather overdesign to reduce the risk profile and position the project better for the inevitable lawsuit. Other countries do not have similar litigation risks. Or at least, that's what my European contemporaries tell me when they come to work in America.

helen___keller 8y ago

This is addressed in section 8, "Institutions part 2: political incentives": > the political system favors NIMBYs and really anyone who complains. Infrastructure construction takes a long time and the politician who gets credit for it is rarely the one who started it, whereas complaints happen early. This can lead to many of the above-named problems, especially overbuilding, such as tunneling where elevated segments would be fine or letting agency turf battles and irrelevant demands dictate project scope.

abduhl 8y ago
My point is related but not exactly the same as his section 8. Litigation in America is what has driven defensive design and construction because we are ALWAYS positioning for claims, especially from third parties. The author is zeroing in on politicians and their lack of a need to take a project from "cradle to grave" and/or answer for cost overruns. This is a symptom of the problem, in my opinion.