5 ms·

What is the deal with construction in the US, how is this allowed to happen?

Enginerrrd 4y ago
Civil Engineer here. It's... complicated. A big problem IMO is the politicization of funding. So for example, when doing road maintenance, it's unique in that it is essentially ALWAYS cheaper to do the maintenance NOW rather than later. So like doing a cheap slurry seal/ chip seal on a road that was just paved 2 years ago is probably actually a really good idea. If you do maintenance like that, you can pretty much maintain that road indefinitely at remarkably low costs. As roads degrade toward failure, the costs to repair them go up exponentially. However, the public doesn't get it. They see the road that is already failed, full of pot holes and cracks and wonder why they're spending money fixing a road where nothing is wrong instead of doing the same thing to the failed road. What they don't realize is that the cost to repair the failed road is 10x, 25x maybe even 100x more expensive than that cheap slurry seal. But they can't differentiate between a seal, or an asphalt overlay or a full repair of the road and subgrade. So the optics of correct and optimal road maintenance strategy are weird, and make the road works strategy dependent on political whims. Now the problems really start to compound. Politicians in the US have been divorced from the reality of costs for a long time. Local jurisdictions essentially rely on "emergency funding" to do the really expensive (over 10-100x cost) repairs that could have been entirely avoided if they had just spent the money to do the maintenance earlier. But they had basically NO incentive to do so. If anything, to get the big money from the state or the fed, they have to let it fail so that it looks really bad and becomes a genuine priority or safety issue. They also just can't help but spend the money on feel-good sexy-looking bullshit out of the general fund instead of properly funding the boring infrastructure projects, because, like a good IT guy, no one notices at all when you're doing your job well. Couple that with polarized politics: Republicans can't help themselves but fight to cut taxes that should go to things like this because they are displeased with government waste and Democrats can't help but spend the tax revenue on other things without worrying about how to pay for them all until tomorrow. So the end result from both sides is: There's just not enough money to do things the cheap way, so now there's REALLY not enough money.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Combine this with the local government in charge of building/maintaining the bridges being the same one that inspects them and you have a recipe for disaster. If there was a separate "department of closing shit infrastructure" then the politicians might not be so inclined to "keep things open" just to prevent complaints.
- drcongo 4y ago
  Definitely didn't expect such a comprehensive answer, thanks for that. We have different funding conflicts here in the UK, and while there's definitely a lot of that "do the shiny thing" going on, we also have a weird annual event where local councils try to use up any remaining budget they have just to make sure it's seen that they needed it, and it won't get cut the following year. So every Feb / March, you see a sudden increase in road maintenance across the country as councils who've ignored your reports of a giant pothole all year suddenly decide to fill every pothole in the county.
- ErikVandeWater 4y ago
  How efficient would you say the government is when it is in fact doing the work? I find myself frustrated when it seems there are more workers than necessary, when potholes aren't at least filled with a stopgap filler so it doesn't suck to drive/bike on (doesn't seem that hard to do, even if it doesn't fix the road long-term), or when there are many simultaneous projects where you could be working on one site 24/7 to get it done so you have fewer impediments to traffic. (I understand paying for a night shift is more expensive, but the man-hours lost in traffic due to extra projects that take longer seem absurd).
  - netizen-936824 4y ago
    How many construction projects have you managed? How many workers for particular jobs do you think is appropriate? Where did you get this information and why is it correct?
    - ErikVandeWater 4y ago
yabones 4y ago
Decades of neoliberal gutting and privatization has basically ruined the public sector & infrastructure in the US. What's left is crumbling and dangerous.
- guardiangod 4y ago
  What does "Neoliberal" and "privatization" has to do with a government not maintaining its bridge properly? Are the inspections or repairs outsourced?
  - JadeNB 4y ago
    > What does "Neoliberal" and "privatization" has to do with a government not maintaining its bridge properly? Privatization is almost the definition of a government not maintaining its bridge (and calling it proper that the government not maintain the bridge is part of the neoliberal attitude). It is exactly the delegation of what some might consider government responsibilities to the private sector.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - fzeroracer 4y ago
    Yes to both? In order to improve 'efficiency' the government delegates everything to private contractors whose incentive is to get the longest and most profitable government contract possible. The entire goal of neoliberalism is as much privatization as possible. I used to work as a government contractor and I came out of it with the strong opinion that it's nothing but wasted tax payer dollars designed to enrich private companies over actually getting work done.
- xbar 4y ago
  This smacks of rhetoric, not an explanation.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  At what point was building and maintenance of infrastructure in the U.S. done by the government? I remain to be convinced on this point, but my gut feeling is that even for things like the construction of the Interstate system most of the work was privately contracted.
gnopgnip 4y ago
Detroit is a shrinking city, and has been for 70 years. Cities can really only afford to maintain everything if they keep growing, staying flat isn't enough either. A lot of people don't care about a pedestrian bridge. A lot of politicians don't really care about something unless it helps them get reelected. Or put another way, unless something bad happens while they are in office they can kick the can down the road, maintenance is boring and can be put off for decades in many cases without an emergency. So a pedestrian bridge is on the bottom of a long list Also most 70 year old concrete bridges are fine, even as they go past their original designed lifespan with deferred maintenance. But an increasing number of concrete bridges will need major refurbishment or to be replaced entirely. Something like 40% of bridges in the US are past their original lifespan

Civil Engineer here. It's... complicated. A big problem IMO is the politicization of funding. So for example, when doing road maintenance, it's unique in that it is essentially ALWAYS cheaper to do the maintenance NOW rather than later. So like doing a cheap slurry seal/ chip seal on a road that was just paved 2 years ago is probably actually a really good idea. If you do maintenance like that, you can pretty much maintain that road indefinitely at remarkably low costs. As roads degrade toward failure, the costs to repair them go up exponentially. However, the public doesn't get it. They see the road that is already failed, full of pot holes and cracks and wonder why they're spending money fixing a road where nothing is wrong instead of doing the same thing to the failed road. What they don't realize is that the cost to repair the failed road is 10x, 25x maybe even 100x more expensive than that cheap slurry seal. But they can't differentiate between a seal, or an asphalt overlay or a full repair of the road and subgrade. So the optics of correct and optimal road maintenance strategy are weird, and make the road works strategy dependent on political whims. Now the problems really start to compound. Politicians in the US have been divorced from the reality of costs for a long time. Local jurisdictions essentially rely on "emergency funding" to do the really expensive (over 10-100x cost) repairs that could have been entirely avoided if they had just spent the money to do the maintenance earlier. But they had basically NO incentive to do so. If anything, to get the big money from the state or the fed, they have to let it fail so that it looks really bad and becomes a genuine priority or safety issue. They also just can't help but spend the money on feel-good sexy-looking bullshit out of the general fund instead of properly funding the boring infrastructure projects, because, like a good IT guy, no one notices at all when you're doing your job well. Couple that with polarized politics: Republicans can't help themselves but fight to cut taxes that should go to things like this because they are displeased with government waste and Democrats can't help but spend the tax revenue on other things without worrying about how to pay for them all until tomorrow. So the end result from both sides is: There's just not enough money to do things the cheap way, so now there's REALLY not enough money.

bombcar 4y ago
Combine this with the local government in charge of building/maintaining the bridges being the same one that inspects them and you have a recipe for disaster. If there was a separate "department of closing shit infrastructure" then the politicians might not be so inclined to "keep things open" just to prevent complaints.
drcongo 4y ago
Definitely didn't expect such a comprehensive answer, thanks for that. We have different funding conflicts here in the UK, and while there's definitely a lot of that "do the shiny thing" going on, we also have a weird annual event where local councils try to use up any remaining budget they have just to make sure it's seen that they needed it, and it won't get cut the following year. So every Feb / March, you see a sudden increase in road maintenance across the country as councils who've ignored your reports of a giant pothole all year suddenly decide to fill every pothole in the county.
ErikVandeWater 4y ago
How efficient would you say the government is when it is in fact doing the work? I find myself frustrated when it seems there are more workers than necessary, when potholes aren't at least filled with a stopgap filler so it doesn't suck to drive/bike on (doesn't seem that hard to do, even if it doesn't fix the road long-term), or when there are many simultaneous projects where you could be working on one site 24/7 to get it done so you have fewer impediments to traffic. (I understand paying for a night shift is more expensive, but the man-hours lost in traffic due to extra projects that take longer seem absurd).
- netizen-936824 4y ago
  How many construction projects have you managed? How many workers for particular jobs do you think is appropriate? Where did you get this information and why is it correct?
  - ErikVandeWater 4y ago

yabones 4y ago

Decades of neoliberal gutting and privatization has basically ruined the public sector & infrastructure in the US. What's left is crumbling and dangerous.

guardiangod 4y ago
What does "Neoliberal" and "privatization" has to do with a government not maintaining its bridge properly? Are the inspections or repairs outsourced?
- JadeNB 4y ago
  > What does "Neoliberal" and "privatization" has to do with a government not maintaining its bridge properly? Privatization is almost the definition of a government not maintaining its bridge (and calling it proper that the government not maintain the bridge is part of the neoliberal attitude). It is exactly the delegation of what some might consider government responsibilities to the private sector.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  Yes to both? In order to improve 'efficiency' the government delegates everything to private contractors whose incentive is to get the longest and most profitable government contract possible. The entire goal of neoliberalism is as much privatization as possible. I used to work as a government contractor and I came out of it with the strong opinion that it's nothing but wasted tax payer dollars designed to enrich private companies over actually getting work done.
xbar 4y ago
This smacks of rhetoric, not an explanation.
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
At what point was building and maintenance of infrastructure in the U.S. done by the government? I remain to be convinced on this point, but my gut feeling is that even for things like the construction of the Interstate system most of the work was privately contracted.

gnopgnip 4y ago

Detroit is a shrinking city, and has been for 70 years. Cities can really only afford to maintain everything if they keep growing, staying flat isn't enough either. A lot of people don't care about a pedestrian bridge. A lot of politicians don't really care about something unless it helps them get reelected. Or put another way, unless something bad happens while they are in office they can kick the can down the road, maintenance is boring and can be put off for decades in many cases without an emergency. So a pedestrian bridge is on the bottom of a long list Also most 70 year old concrete bridges are fine, even as they go past their original designed lifespan with deferred maintenance. But an increasing number of concrete bridges will need major refurbishment or to be replaced entirely. Something like 40% of bridges in the US are past their original lifespan