6 ms·

How much room for improvement did you net out at? I wonder if there's a point where it'd be significant enough to make inroads... The recent rebuild of a secti

by Reedx 6y ago

How much room for improvement did you net out at? I wonder if there's a point where it'd be significant enough to make inroads... The recent rebuild of a section of the Bay Bridge took 11 years and went 2,500% over budget. Whereas the original entire bridge was built in 5 years, ahead of schedule and under budget. And something I just came across: SF allegedly had 6 Salesforce subscriptions at $1M/YR, and not even using them[1]. Given stuff like that, I worry you're right, it may hardly matter how much better a construction company is. 1. https://twitter.com/michelletandler/status/1273404339566993408 https://twitter.com/michelletandler/status/12734043395669934...

willcipriano 6y ago
Offer a 10% tax free finders fee to anyone who finds any wasteful spending like that. $600k once for a $6 million annual savings (and that's before you fire whomever is in charge of auditing the books already) is a steal. Accountants and auditors could work like bug bounty hunters.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  This is a great idea, but waste is in the eye of the beholder. A $6M environmental impact study might be considered waste by me, considered politically nice by the politician who agreed to it, considered legally necessary by the government's lawyer, and considered vital by the contractor paid to perform the study. Who's right?
  - willcipriano 6y ago
    If similar environmental impact studies cost half as much or if the study was not read by those who ordered it that is a pretty clear case. Some things are ambiguous I admit but I'm willing to bet there is enough low hanging fruit to keep a good number of people employed looking for it. Edit: This is a HN faux pas however, please don't downvote the person above, they added to the discussion. I suspect that may be a common objection and I'm glad to be able to clarify it.
    - btilly 6y ago
      If similar environmental impact studies cost half as much... Who defines "similar"? Is a study performed in Texas similar to one performed in California? Is a study performed on land that drains into the municipal water supply similar to one performed on land that doesn't? Are two studies performed near each other location 10 years apart "similar" if new laws have come into existence, or a local species has been declared endangered in the meantime? No matter how obvious the matter might seem, people will still disagree. And the people spending money can always come up with justifications. ...or if the study was not read by those who ordered it that is a pretty clear case. How do you prove that those who ordered it did not read the study? And what if they did not read the study, but instead read a summary of it prepared by someone qualified who did read the study?
      - willcipriano 6y ago
        > Who defines "similar"? A court of law. > Is a study performed in Texas similar to one performed in California? Is a study performed on land that drains into the municipal water supply similar to one performed on land that doesn't? Are two studies performed near each other location 10 years apart "similar" if new laws have come into existence, or a local species has been declared endangered in the meantime? I don't have the answer to these questions but I wager that we can find experts who do. Presumably firms exist that do hundreds or thousands of studies annually, those firms could testify how they would bid such a project. What the cost structure typically looks like. > How do you prove that those who ordered it did not read the study? A government employee could send a email to the effect that the report was not considered that is later discovered. Alternatively, a whistle-blower may clandestinely gather evidence in order to collect the bounty for themselves. > And what if they did not read the study, but instead read a summary of it prepared by someone qualified who did read the study? That seems like a reasonable use of funds. This isn't going to catch every case, the purpose is to provide a natural check to government corruption and waste. Discoveries made by this system may lead to the judicial branch investigating those who made these choices. The FBI could use these tips to target sting operations. The voting public may use this information to decide whom they are going to elect, and the best part is it's free.
- darkerside 6y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
  - burlesona 6y ago
    That's an interesting point but it's arguably not the same because you should be able to enforce a strict separation between parties such that it isn't possible for the people who collect bounties to create the waste/corruption that they are being paid the bounty to identify.
    - darkerside 6y ago
      In theory, of course. But when there's money involved, it has a funny way of flowing towards "value creation". In theory, you should be able to keep politicians from benefiting from a quid pro quo with lobbyists. In practice, politicians seem to frequently attain cushy jobs in private industry after their terms end (and sometimes before another begins). Humans are unfailingly creative. I don't know how they'd game the system you set up, but I assure you they will!
chongli 6y ago
Whereas the original entire bridge was built in 5 years, ahead of schedule and under budget. The original Bay Bridge also had 28 fatalities during its construction. Imagine that happening today!
- asdff 6y ago
  I'm not sure that harnesses and hard hats would have delayed that timeline by very much.
  - ponker 6y ago
    An expectation that acceptable deaths/injuries = 0 definitely affects the timeline.
    - asdff 6y ago
      We haven't won that battle yet. A worker passed away recently at the sofi stadium construction site, due to a miscommunication on maintaining a panel. I don't think preventing this unfortunate death, which would have just required one person mentioning to another that they are working in a particular area, would have added high costs to the build. I'm curious to know the actual costs of worker safety. It's always painted as the boogyman of the high budget project, but how expensive can PPE, building hasty wooden railings, and importantly communicating danger to employees which was the failure in this case really be? I must be missing some key costs here, and would love to be more informed. https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2020-06-12/attorney-for-ironworker-died-sofi-stadium-fall-says-safety-lapses-contributed https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2020-06-12/attorney-for...
      - chongli 6y ago
        It isn't just worker safety that has improved in the last century, it's the safety of people in the building throughout its life. Building codes have expanded in scope and complexity over the years. Part of their scope includes installation method restricts and worker training and qualifications. The other aspect of it is general workplace safety regulations which have expanded over the years as well. When budgeting a project, you need to consider both, however. And workers also benefit from both. For example, the restriction on the use of asbestos in building insulation was brought in to reduce the health hazards of living or working in such a building but the construction workers handling the asbestos are clearly the most at-risk group which benefits from the regulation.
asdff 6y ago
Part of the costs is our low tolerance for detouring car traffic. Recently, LA metro made waves by shaving 7 months off of their purple line extension schedule, since the lightened pandemic traffic allowed them to dig an open cut along wilshire and install decking over the future station. Beverly Hills fought that closure from happening since the build began, but the pandemic forced their hand and removed any ground for their argument to stand on. We could save so much money if we didn't focus so much effort on minimizing construction impact to existing traffic. We would rather take a longer, slower, more painful bleed of the public purse, than cheaply ripping the bandaid off and dealing with a 15 minute longer commute for a few months.
- aaaxyz 6y ago
  Yep, close to 50% of the cost for burying power lines is having to manage and redirect traffic (in Canada)
- novok 6y ago
  Well that is just offloading costs onto the public as tax is it not? At a $15/hr min wage, adding 15 minutes to a round trip commute for 20'000 people/day M-F costs after 7 months $10.5 million dollars too.
  - lifeisstillgood 6y ago
    I am not fond of this cost-based argument - you hear this one (longer commute times priced at hourly wage) and similar ones. But no company pays me for my commute time. If I take an extra hour commute I don't get that 15 bucks. And that commute time does not go onto GDP either. It's hard to argue the economy lost the time I was doing nothing productive. And if we really want to take it to the extreme, if it costs the country 15 bucks each hour people are not paid to work, but could have been doing something useful, Avengers Endgame must have cost the country more than it made in ticket sales. Thanos' final revenge:-)
    - nordsieck 6y ago
      > But no company pays me for my commute time. If I take an extra hour commute I don't get that 15 bucks. And that commute time does not go onto GDP either. It's hard to argue the economy lost the time I was doing nothing productive. I suppose that's true if you believe that things without a price are worth nothing. Truly, it's a mystery why people spend time with their families and friends instead of working another job. Such a waste of time.
buzzkillington 6y ago
>The recent rebuild of a section of the Bay Bridge took 11 years and went 2,500% over budget. Whereas the original entire bridge was built in 5 years, ahead of schedule and under budget. To use an analogy from heart surgery: Fixing a car is easy. Fixing a running car is hard. There comes a point at which starting from scratch is better than trying to fix the original mess. Which in our business means the company goes out of business and is replaced by something new.
- projektfu 6y ago
  If an earthquake knocked it down somehow people managed to move on until it was rebuilt. The same for the I-85 collapse in Atlanta. Amazingly, traffic was slightly worse but it’s always disastrous so it wasn’t that much worse. Freeway projects should probably shut down the road more often and just get done.

by Reedx 6y ago

willcipriano 6y ago

Offer a 10% tax free finders fee to anyone who finds any wasteful spending like that. $600k once for a $6 million annual savings (and that's before you fire whomever is in charge of auditing the books already) is a steal. Accountants and auditors could work like bug bounty hunters.

ryandrake 6y ago
This is a great idea, but waste is in the eye of the beholder. A $6M environmental impact study might be considered waste by me, considered politically nice by the politician who agreed to it, considered legally necessary by the government's lawyer, and considered vital by the contractor paid to perform the study. Who's right?
- willcipriano 6y ago
  If similar environmental impact studies cost half as much or if the study was not read by those who ordered it that is a pretty clear case. Some things are ambiguous I admit but I'm willing to bet there is enough low hanging fruit to keep a good number of people employed looking for it. Edit: This is a HN faux pas however, please don't downvote the person above, they added to the discussion. I suspect that may be a common objection and I'm glad to be able to clarify it.
  - btilly 6y ago
    If similar environmental impact studies cost half as much... Who defines "similar"? Is a study performed in Texas similar to one performed in California? Is a study performed on land that drains into the municipal water supply similar to one performed on land that doesn't? Are two studies performed near each other location 10 years apart "similar" if new laws have come into existence, or a local species has been declared endangered in the meantime? No matter how obvious the matter might seem, people will still disagree. And the people spending money can always come up with justifications. ...or if the study was not read by those who ordered it that is a pretty clear case. How do you prove that those who ordered it did not read the study? And what if they did not read the study, but instead read a summary of it prepared by someone qualified who did read the study?
    - willcipriano 6y ago
      > Who defines "similar"? A court of law. > Is a study performed in Texas similar to one performed in California? Is a study performed on land that drains into the municipal water supply similar to one performed on land that doesn't? Are two studies performed near each other location 10 years apart "similar" if new laws have come into existence, or a local species has been declared endangered in the meantime? I don't have the answer to these questions but I wager that we can find experts who do. Presumably firms exist that do hundreds or thousands of studies annually, those firms could testify how they would bid such a project. What the cost structure typically looks like. > How do you prove that those who ordered it did not read the study? A government employee could send a email to the effect that the report was not considered that is later discovered. Alternatively, a whistle-blower may clandestinely gather evidence in order to collect the bounty for themselves. > And what if they did not read the study, but instead read a summary of it prepared by someone qualified who did read the study? That seems like a reasonable use of funds. This isn't going to catch every case, the purpose is to provide a natural check to government corruption and waste. Discoveries made by this system may lead to the judicial branch investigating those who made these choices. The FBI could use these tips to target sting operations. The voting public may use this information to decide whom they are going to elect, and the best part is it's free.
darkerside 6y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
- burlesona 6y ago
  That's an interesting point but it's arguably not the same because you should be able to enforce a strict separation between parties such that it isn't possible for the people who collect bounties to create the waste/corruption that they are being paid the bounty to identify.
  - darkerside 6y ago
    In theory, of course. But when there's money involved, it has a funny way of flowing towards "value creation". In theory, you should be able to keep politicians from benefiting from a quid pro quo with lobbyists. In practice, politicians seem to frequently attain cushy jobs in private industry after their terms end (and sometimes before another begins). Humans are unfailingly creative. I don't know how they'd game the system you set up, but I assure you they will!

chongli 6y ago

Whereas the original entire bridge was built in 5 years, ahead of schedule and under budget. The original Bay Bridge also had 28 fatalities during its construction. Imagine that happening today!

asdff 6y ago
I'm not sure that harnesses and hard hats would have delayed that timeline by very much.
- ponker 6y ago
  An expectation that acceptable deaths/injuries = 0 definitely affects the timeline.
  - asdff 6y ago
    We haven't won that battle yet. A worker passed away recently at the sofi stadium construction site, due to a miscommunication on maintaining a panel. I don't think preventing this unfortunate death, which would have just required one person mentioning to another that they are working in a particular area, would have added high costs to the build. I'm curious to know the actual costs of worker safety. It's always painted as the boogyman of the high budget project, but how expensive can PPE, building hasty wooden railings, and importantly communicating danger to employees which was the failure in this case really be? I must be missing some key costs here, and would love to be more informed. https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2020-06-12/attorney-for-ironworker-died-sofi-stadium-fall-says-safety-lapses-contributed https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2020-06-12/attorney-for...
    - chongli 6y ago
      It isn't just worker safety that has improved in the last century, it's the safety of people in the building throughout its life. Building codes have expanded in scope and complexity over the years. Part of their scope includes installation method restricts and worker training and qualifications. The other aspect of it is general workplace safety regulations which have expanded over the years as well. When budgeting a project, you need to consider both, however. And workers also benefit from both. For example, the restriction on the use of asbestos in building insulation was brought in to reduce the health hazards of living or working in such a building but the construction workers handling the asbestos are clearly the most at-risk group which benefits from the regulation.

asdff 6y ago

Part of the costs is our low tolerance for detouring car traffic. Recently, LA metro made waves by shaving 7 months off of their purple line extension schedule, since the lightened pandemic traffic allowed them to dig an open cut along wilshire and install decking over the future station. Beverly Hills fought that closure from happening since the build began, but the pandemic forced their hand and removed any ground for their argument to stand on. We could save so much money if we didn't focus so much effort on minimizing construction impact to existing traffic. We would rather take a longer, slower, more painful bleed of the public purse, than cheaply ripping the bandaid off and dealing with a 15 minute longer commute for a few months.

aaaxyz 6y ago
Yep, close to 50% of the cost for burying power lines is having to manage and redirect traffic (in Canada)
novok 6y ago
Well that is just offloading costs onto the public as tax is it not? At a $15/hr min wage, adding 15 minutes to a round trip commute for 20'000 people/day M-F costs after 7 months $10.5 million dollars too.
- lifeisstillgood 6y ago
  I am not fond of this cost-based argument - you hear this one (longer commute times priced at hourly wage) and similar ones. But no company pays me for my commute time. If I take an extra hour commute I don't get that 15 bucks. And that commute time does not go onto GDP either. It's hard to argue the economy lost the time I was doing nothing productive. And if we really want to take it to the extreme, if it costs the country 15 bucks each hour people are not paid to work, but could have been doing something useful, Avengers Endgame must have cost the country more than it made in ticket sales. Thanos' final revenge:-)
  - nordsieck 6y ago
    > But no company pays me for my commute time. If I take an extra hour commute I don't get that 15 bucks. And that commute time does not go onto GDP either. It's hard to argue the economy lost the time I was doing nothing productive. I suppose that's true if you believe that things without a price are worth nothing. Truly, it's a mystery why people spend time with their families and friends instead of working another job. Such a waste of time.

buzzkillington 6y ago

>The recent rebuild of a section of the Bay Bridge took 11 years and went 2,500% over budget. Whereas the original entire bridge was built in 5 years, ahead of schedule and under budget. To use an analogy from heart surgery: Fixing a car is easy. Fixing a running car is hard. There comes a point at which starting from scratch is better than trying to fix the original mess. Which in our business means the company goes out of business and is replaced by something new.

projektfu 6y ago
If an earthquake knocked it down somehow people managed to move on until it was rebuilt. The same for the I-85 collapse in Atlanta. Amazingly, traffic was slightly worse but it’s always disastrous so it wasn’t that much worse. Freeway projects should probably shut down the road more often and just get done.