"This tunnel will be a bargain" -- Big Dig Bashin'

Back on topic. I just read a very good paper on the failures of big public construction projects, including in passing the Big Dig. Worldwide, new train projects tend to come in at double the predicted cost, and service half the riders originally estimated. Or course, the Big Dig did worse than that on cost.

There is also a nice analysis of why these projects are always over budget.

http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/centres/bt/Documents/UnfittestOXREPHelm3.4PRINT.p
 
Dead link. You mean the Flyvbjerg paper? That's pretty well known.
 
JonFrum said:
There is also a nice analysis of why these projects are always over budget.
Click to expand...

Probably the same reason as always: politics. If the project is too expensive to be politically viable and someone with a powerful enough agenda wants it done, it'll be pushed through with a falsely reduced price tag. Then, after the work starts, it'll be discovered that in order to complete the project, more money will be needed.
 
If Davis-Bacon requirements were eliminated, the cost of most publicly funded projects in the US would drop by anywhere from 40 to 60% with no impact on quality.
 
Kahta said:
If Davis-Bacon requirements were eliminated, the cost of most publicly funded projects in the US would drop by anywhere from 40 to 60% with no impact on quality.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that. Once you subtract out the non-labor costs (materials, construction equipment, contractor's profit, design and engineering costs, permitting, insurance, etc), what's left? My bet is the cost of labor in these projects is in the vicinity of 25%. That's not to say Davis-Bacon is good policy, or eliminating it wouldn't make them cheaper, but I think the savings would be more in the realm of 10%.
 
massmotorist said:
I seriously doubt that. Once you subtract out the non-labor costs (materials, construction equipment, contractor's profit, design and engineering costs, permitting, insurance, etc), what's left? My bet is the cost of labor in these projects is in the vicinity of 25%. That's not to say Davis-Bacon is good policy, or eliminating it wouldn't make them cheaper, but I think the savings would be more in the realm of 10%.
Click to expand...

My father has worked on a number of public projects in his career and he estimated that it raises the cost of labor by 2-3x market rate on unskilled and semi-skilled labor and 75-80% on skilled labor. As an example, moving furniture for a school goes from a $14/hour (no benefits, not subject to prevailing wage) job to a $20+/hour job (plus benefits) for all labor related to moving if a principals or administrators office is involved.

My grandfather was a superintendent, foreman, and civil engineer on various construction projects through the northeast. Recently before he passed, some of the projects he was working on were up to 70% environmental mitigation costs.

Other projects he worked on were designing the cross-bronx expressway and much of the NYS thruway. Examples of waste (besides poor productivity which he estimated slowed jobs by 20%) included the union contract requiring that the steel rebar be bent and cut on the jobsite because it required a teamster-driven 18 wheeler with an escort vehicle, then highly paid steel cutters to cut it at the construction site, the bricks on the retaining wall on the cross bronx were to appease a masonry union.

He said that most highway projects where he dealt with had the following problems: unions cost substantially more not only because of prevailing wage nonsense, but union workers eager to find ways to slow down, state troopers holding up trucks because they didn't feel that there were enough police details on the site, and now in the 1980s to present, increasing costs of unnecessary mitigation, and obstructionist lawsuits from environmental/transit/neighborhood groups have served to only to increase the length of time and the amount of money required to engage in relatively simple projects. The standard cost for building interstate highway in a rural area without expensive takings or ROW acquisition prior to excessive mitigation costs was about $1,000,000 a mile in the 1960s, adjusted for inflation that's about $7 million today.
 
I don't doubt a lot of that. But:

1) Labor is a relatively minor (well under 50%) component of major heavy construction projects, so lowering it is never going to make the project 40-60% cheaper even if it's probably a good idea.
2) Much of what you said is a criticism of unions (much of which I agree with) rather than Davis-Bacon. Non-union firms do public construction jobs all the time.
3) Davis Bacon's been around since the 30's, so any cost increases since the 60's can't be attributed to it.

That said, the view of government projects and agencies as make-work jobs programs is toxic to the mission of delivering public services. Any change within reasonable ethical bounds that delivers better services at a lower their cost is a good thing. And that includes repeal of Davis-Bacon.
 
massmotorist said:
I don't doubt a lot of that. But:

1) Labor is a relatively minor (well under 50%) component of major heavy construction projects, so lowering it is never going to make the project 40-60% cheaper even if it's probably a good idea.
2) Much of what you said is a criticism of unions (much of which I agree with) rather than Davis-Bacon. Non-union firms do public construction jobs all the time.
3) Davis Bacon's been around since the 30's, so any cost increases since the 60's can't be attributed to it.

That said, the view of government projects and agencies as make-work jobs programs is toxic to the mission of delivering public services. Any change within reasonable ethical bounds that delivers better services at a lower their cost is a good thing. And that includes repeal of Davis-Bacon.
Click to expand...

1) As it was explained to me Davis-Bacon and prevailing wage requirements can be attributed all the way to the physical material being used on the project.
2) Non-union firms are still required to pay prevailing wage-- I know this is the case in MA because of our laws that are stronger than federal laws, I'm not sure if it's a federal requirement.
 
Kahta said:
1) As it was explained to me Davis-Bacon and prevailing wage requirements can be attributed all the way to the physical material being used on the project.
2) Non-union firms are still required to pay prevailing wage-- I know this is the case in MA because of our laws that are stronger than federal laws, I'm not sure if it's a federal requirement.
Click to expand...

The law itself is brief and straightforward and it seems to reference only on-site workers.

The point about non-union contractors is that the productivity issues associated with unions do add costs, and that's bad, but that's independent of Davis-Bacon since D-B doesn't require union contractors.
 
Kahta said:
If Davis-Bacon requirements were eliminated, the cost of most publicly funded projects in the US would drop by anywhere from 40 to 60% with no impact on quality.
Click to expand...

Kahta, I work for a large, public works construction company. We are signatory with the Laborers and Operators. Your argument about cost savings is silly.
1. Labor costs are typically around 25% of the cost of an infrastructure project. So if you brought in slave labor your savings are maxed out at 25%.
2. Even on the Big Dig there was no clamoring for assembly on site. That's a myth. It doesn't happen. At least not in Boston.
3. If non-union companies were so much more productive they would be cleaning the clocks of union companies on bids. That doesn't happen. There are some large non-union companies (SPS, Middlesex, Cianbro, etc.) that do very well in the Boston area, but I doubt the success rate of their bids is any higher than the union contractors.

I agree that Davis-Bacon increases labor rates. Probably somewhere in the area of 30-40% (when you include all the benefits though certainly that gap has closed with the new healthcare law). So that means Davis-Bacon adds something like 7-10% to overall costs of public works.
 
JonFrum said:
Back on topic. I just read a very good paper on the failures of big public construction projects, including in passing the Big Dig. Worldwide, new train projects tend to come in at double the predicted cost, and service half the riders originally estimated. Or course, the Big Dig did worse than that on cost.

There is also a nice analysis of why these projects are always over budget.

http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/centres/bt/Documents/UnfittestOXREPHelm3.4PRINT.p
Click to expand...

Sorry - bad link. Try this:

http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/centres/bt/Documents/UnfittestOXREPHelm3.4PRINT.pdf
 
Some Questions...

1. Why Didn't they Finish replacing the I-93 Viaduct in Somerville?
2. Why is there a Stub Ramp left on the Viaduct?
3. Why Didn't they clean up and reconstruct the Abandoned US 1 Ramps?
 
I can't seem to find a proper thread for my question so I'll post here. I'm like that.

Back when the Central Artery existed, there were road signs below it near the North Station off-ramp and near the underpass going to the North End.

Did traffic used to run under the artery on this section? By the time I go to Boston full-time (1986) there certainly wasn't any traffic - most of the under-artery was parking, if memory serves.

Help?
 
North Street was the dividing line. South of North Street, there was the "Surface Artery" street running under the viaduct. North of North Street, there were only parking lots under the viaduct.
 
JohnAKeith said:
Right underneath it? When was this? When did it stop?
Click to expand...

My recollection is that it was that way well in to the actual dig. It was certainly still like that in the early to mid-90s, after that I spent much less time in the area.
 
It definitely continued until 1997-98 or thereabouts. It's been so long that I can't envision it anymore, but I know it was there.
 
Thank you for your comments. The spot where I'm talking about was definitely not open to traffic for a long time but the problem is, I can't explain where it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top