3 ms·

Here is another way to think about that story: DOT and their proven, reliable contractor had experience with a certain method of rehabbing the joints between c

Here is another way to think about that story: DOT and their proven, reliable contractor had experience with a certain method of rehabbing the joints between concrete slabs. A new technique was tried, and the first few attempts were not done well. The new technique showed promise, but there was a concern that if the new technique failed, there would be consequences to the state for trying a new technique rather than the tried-and-true method. To reduce the risk to themselves, the DOT went with the old method. IME, DOT and transit agencies often shy away from new methods/techniques because they are raked over the coals whenever the new approach doesn't work out (see SF Bay Bridge, or the Big Dig [0]). That makes them risk averse to trying or sticking with innovative methods. [0] I'm not saying that cost problems with those projects are completely due to new methods/processes, but significant chunks were.

dqpb 7y ago
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a riskless option.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  If the last decades of experience with government and corporate bureaucracies taught us anything, it's that one of the primary functions of bureaucracies is to route risk around. Every part of an organization is risk-phobic, so the risk accumulates in places where the people either can't effectively dump it on someone else, or they don't notice what's happening. So e.g. here, by choosing an inferior but established method over a superior but new one, the DOT was routing the risk in the form of "they might rake us over the coals" away from themselves, and dumping it onto taxpayers in the form of "we'll pay more for it now, and even more when it breaks in a couple of years".
nsxwolf 7y ago
We should still be talking about this. That story fascinated me. If the media went into more detail on infrastructure beyond stories about how it's crumbling or who in congress does or doesn't want to pay for it, that could really make a difference. I would watch a nightly news show called "Infrastructure Tonight" if it existed.
- lowdose 7y ago
  It would be awesome if the fourth estate executed their role in society proper. But outlets like the WSJ have to push out an article per minute to remain relevant in the search ranking. Maybe news is more important than just supplying entertainment and should the world take notice of UK's model with the BBC.
  - late2part 7y ago
    you are also subscribed to and paying Vice?
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    The great thing about markets is people get to vote on what’s important to them. The bad thing about government programs is they can force everyone else to pay for what’s important to a few loud voices. There are lots of high quality subscriber news agencies struggling because their services aren’t that important to most people. Using the state to force people to subsidize that won’t make them care more.
tomohawk 7y ago
I get that. However, the DOT has used the approach in other areas with great success. In many cases, the concrete roadways were put in before finite element analysis models were available or even remotely realistic. A lot of research has gone into how to repair these after the fact so that money is saved and you don't get the thumpity thump, etc. States make their own choices, though. The DOT can only cajole them by dangling money. If the only competency in a state DOT is to cut a check, and there is not going to be any price to be paid for putting in a road that is unsafe or that does not last or that costs too much, then it is more likely that too much money will be spent. Another related story is this relative went to Germany to confer with counterparts over there and compare notes. The Germans were laughing at them because they use the US research, but the US doesn't. We have great research spanning multiple decades, but political concerns are what end up determining how roads are built.
- Anechoic 7y ago
  However, the DOT has used the approach in other areas with great success. And I get that - in fact I live it. I'm a government contractor that works on transportation projects and it's frustrating when a particular agency doesn't want to use an innovative technique or design that has literally been successful on another project that's only a few miles away but project managers don't want to be testifying in front of their state legislatures about wasting tax payer money with a new fangled approach when the tried and true could have been used. Magazines like Engineering News-Record and ASME/ASCE journals bang the drum for concepts like "state of good repair" and ROI, but as long as the public will hang a politician or project manager out to try for an unsuccessful project (or worse, a new technique that kills someone), project managers will route around risk. Again, I'm not saying this is why US projects are so expensive, but there is often a rational through process behind seemingly irrational decisions. (yes, there are times where incompetency and/or corruption are also to blame, but IME it's much less often than portrayed in this thread).
  - mc32 7y ago
    Maybe the construction industry or infrastructure need to find their analogue to “cloud” and “AI” so that when the heads of these departments from different states get together they can crow about how their contractors are using “smart” concrete and “smart” building techniques built with the assistance of DoT AI. Something to make them feel like they’re keeping up with the other state DoT Joneses.
shmat 7y ago
Sometimes new techniques turn out to be a disaster. I-495 in Massachusetts was built using a new technique for concrete roadways. Concrete is normally not used to build roads in New England because it doesn't handle frost heaves. The new technique "solved" that problem. The result was that every inch of I-495 has had to be rebuilt. Even worse, the first "rebuild" was to lay asphalt over the concrete and then subsequently everything had to be ripped out and done again.

dqpb 7y ago

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a riskless option.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
If the last decades of experience with government and corporate bureaucracies taught us anything, it's that one of the primary functions of bureaucracies is to route risk around. Every part of an organization is risk-phobic, so the risk accumulates in places where the people either can't effectively dump it on someone else, or they don't notice what's happening. So e.g. here, by choosing an inferior but established method over a superior but new one, the DOT was routing the risk in the form of "they might rake us over the coals" away from themselves, and dumping it onto taxpayers in the form of "we'll pay more for it now, and even more when it breaks in a couple of years".

nsxwolf 7y ago

We should still be talking about this. That story fascinated me. If the media went into more detail on infrastructure beyond stories about how it's crumbling or who in congress does or doesn't want to pay for it, that could really make a difference. I would watch a nightly news show called "Infrastructure Tonight" if it existed.

lowdose 7y ago
It would be awesome if the fourth estate executed their role in society proper. But outlets like the WSJ have to push out an article per minute to remain relevant in the search ranking. Maybe news is more important than just supplying entertainment and should the world take notice of UK's model with the BBC.
- late2part 7y ago
  you are also subscribed to and paying Vice?
- merpnderp 7y ago
  The great thing about markets is people get to vote on what’s important to them. The bad thing about government programs is they can force everyone else to pay for what’s important to a few loud voices. There are lots of high quality subscriber news agencies struggling because their services aren’t that important to most people. Using the state to force people to subsidize that won’t make them care more.

tomohawk 7y ago

I get that. However, the DOT has used the approach in other areas with great success. In many cases, the concrete roadways were put in before finite element analysis models were available or even remotely realistic. A lot of research has gone into how to repair these after the fact so that money is saved and you don't get the thumpity thump, etc. States make their own choices, though. The DOT can only cajole them by dangling money. If the only competency in a state DOT is to cut a check, and there is not going to be any price to be paid for putting in a road that is unsafe or that does not last or that costs too much, then it is more likely that too much money will be spent. Another related story is this relative went to Germany to confer with counterparts over there and compare notes. The Germans were laughing at them because they use the US research, but the US doesn't. We have great research spanning multiple decades, but political concerns are what end up determining how roads are built.

Anechoic 7y ago
However, the DOT has used the approach in other areas with great success. And I get that - in fact I live it. I'm a government contractor that works on transportation projects and it's frustrating when a particular agency doesn't want to use an innovative technique or design that has literally been successful on another project that's only a few miles away but project managers don't want to be testifying in front of their state legislatures about wasting tax payer money with a new fangled approach when the tried and true could have been used. Magazines like Engineering News-Record and ASME/ASCE journals bang the drum for concepts like "state of good repair" and ROI, but as long as the public will hang a politician or project manager out to try for an unsuccessful project (or worse, a new technique that kills someone), project managers will route around risk. Again, I'm not saying this is why US projects are so expensive, but there is often a rational through process behind seemingly irrational decisions. (yes, there are times where incompetency and/or corruption are also to blame, but IME it's much less often than portrayed in this thread).
- mc32 7y ago
  Maybe the construction industry or infrastructure need to find their analogue to “cloud” and “AI” so that when the heads of these departments from different states get together they can crow about how their contractors are using “smart” concrete and “smart” building techniques built with the assistance of DoT AI. Something to make them feel like they’re keeping up with the other state DoT Joneses.

shmat 7y ago

Sometimes new techniques turn out to be a disaster. I-495 in Massachusetts was built using a new technique for concrete roadways. Concrete is normally not used to build roads in New England because it doesn't handle frost heaves. The new technique "solved" that problem. The result was that every inch of I-495 has had to be rebuilt. Even worse, the first "rebuild" was to lay asphalt over the concrete and then subsequently everything had to be ripped out and done again.