MI officials fast-track bridge fix after man says it 'collapsed under my feet'(detroitnews.com)
detroitnews.com
MI officials fast-track bridge fix after man says it 'collapsed under my feet'
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2022/05/15/man-says-fell-through-pedestrian-bridge-lodge-freeway-detroit/9787488002/
198 comments
These pillars?: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9825563,-83.7311805,3a,90y,3...
Yup! That next bridge 100 feet farther north looks even worse too, lol. Don't think you're supposed to be able to see the deck like that.
From what I remember, that set of bridges has had problems with chunks coming off and hitting people as they drive on the highway. A chunk of concrete at 70mph is absolutely lethal.
From what I remember, that set of bridges has had problems with chunks coming off and hitting people as they drive on the highway. A chunk of concrete at 70mph is absolutely lethal.
I was going to guess the opposite, you're supposed to be able to see the deck but they've stuck a layer under the bottom to keep debris from falling on the road
I wonder how much of the 2 trillion infrastructure bill will actually go to improving infrastructure
Those look incredibly spindly and fragile, even if they were in good condition. I don't think I've ever seen a road bridge constructed as delicately as that here in Scotland.
I guess you don't get wind, rain, or snow there.
I guess you don't get wind, rain, or snow there.
> I guess you don't get wind, rain, or snow there.
Hahahah. It's michigan. We get some of the more intense winter weather in the states.
That's actually part of the problem, it's an extremely variable climate, we get over 100F in the summer and under 0F in the winter. It results in a lot of road wear compared to more southerly states, due to the freeze-thaw cycle.
The west side of the state is comparable to New York, tons of lake effect snow. No hurricanes here though.
Hahahah. It's michigan. We get some of the more intense winter weather in the states.
That's actually part of the problem, it's an extremely variable climate, we get over 100F in the summer and under 0F in the winter. It results in a lot of road wear compared to more southerly states, due to the freeze-thaw cycle.
The west side of the state is comparable to New York, tons of lake effect snow. No hurricanes here though.
I guess these ones at the Baillieston Interchange on the M8 just outside Glasgow are about as thick, but they're much shorter. Of course down south there at below 56°N the weather's a lot gentler and kinder.
https://goo.gl/maps/MD6ErnBZ4mzDdkup9
If you spin round to look west at the M73 flyover you'll see they're a kind of tapered oval section, but they're also forming a triangle with the road deck which makes the structure a lot stiffer.
I was surprised to discover how much concrete bends when I was doing radio comms work on the Queensferry Crossing project a bit north of Edinburgh. The road deck was built as steel sections with concrete on top and lifted into place, one side then the other. With them "unbalanced", one side lifted on but the other not lifted yet, the top of the 600-foot concrete towers - the top had a working platform about the size of four parking spaces - bent over by about six feet...
https://goo.gl/maps/MD6ErnBZ4mzDdkup9
If you spin round to look west at the M73 flyover you'll see they're a kind of tapered oval section, but they're also forming a triangle with the road deck which makes the structure a lot stiffer.
I was surprised to discover how much concrete bends when I was doing radio comms work on the Queensferry Crossing project a bit north of Edinburgh. The road deck was built as steel sections with concrete on top and lifted into place, one side then the other. With them "unbalanced", one side lifted on but the other not lifted yet, the top of the 600-foot concrete towers - the top had a working platform about the size of four parking spaces - bent over by about six feet...
>> There is a bridge in Flint where the support pillars are held together by giant steel clamps because the concrete is crumbling underneath them.
They've been replacing a bunch of bridges on I-94 in Detroit. Many of them had lots of rebar showing on the pillars where the concrete had crumbled a way. Not just a bar showing, but a decent sized grid. It doesn't surprise me that a pedestrian bridge got overlooked with all the road bridges in need. Still no excuse.
They've been replacing a bunch of bridges on I-94 in Detroit. Many of them had lots of rebar showing on the pillars where the concrete had crumbled a way. Not just a bar showing, but a decent sized grid. It doesn't surprise me that a pedestrian bridge got overlooked with all the road bridges in need. Still no excuse.
The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) is doing a terrible job. A recent audit found problems in the way they audit bids for work. I've spoken with people at road construction companies who have told me about changes that make the situation worse than a few years ago for the speed and cost of building roads. Policy things making it slower and more expensive that are baked in to the contracts.
It's not just spending, which isn't efficient. Michigan has been (for decades) on the of the lowest spending states per capita on roads. This is across both Republicans and Democrats in the governor's seat.
It's not just spending, which isn't efficient. Michigan has been (for decades) on the of the lowest spending states per capita on roads. This is across both Republicans and Democrats in the governor's seat.
No wonder their roads are so bad.
> it just never gets fixed.
Its because public spending on infrastructure is "socialism" and it is better to give loans to private companies and let "the free market" fix the infrastructure; any day now.
Its an unexplained miracle the US hasn't collapsed yet.
Its because public spending on infrastructure is "socialism" and it is better to give loans to private companies and let "the free market" fix the infrastructure; any day now.
Its an unexplained miracle the US hasn't collapsed yet.
It’s starting to. Remember that bridge in Pittsburgh that spontaneously collapsed? I’m sure there are many other lesser known examples.
The PA bridge collapsed despite a recent (couple years prior) gas tax hike that was supposedly going to be used to prevent exactly that kind of outcome.
Throwing money at the problem doesn't work if you suck at throwing and can't hit the problem.
Throwing money at the problem doesn't work if you suck at throwing and can't hit the problem.
[deleted]
>> Its because public spending on infrastructure is "socialism" and it is better to give loans to private companies and let "the free market" fix the infrastructure; any day now.
nonsense. It's the governments job to do this maintenance. There are entire departments dedicated to it. The problem is that they are underfunded, in part because the money goes ummm somewhere else, and because for some reason taxing people or business enough to cover state expenses is considered bad practice.
nonsense. It's the governments job to do this maintenance. There are entire departments dedicated to it. The problem is that they are underfunded, in part because the money goes ummm somewhere else, and because for some reason taxing people or business enough to cover state expenses is considered bad practice.
Yes, introduce use taxes that fully pay for such infrastructure. Stop overbuilding everything--no reason to make a 4 lane overpass when 2 is sufficient.
What’s the cost difference in % from building 2 vs 4? What happens if in 10 years you really do need 4? Sometimes it’s smart to overbuild things with a long lifespan.
All good questions that are not actually answered when they make those decisions. What does 'need' mean? What is the maintenance cost of maintaining two lanes of road that might be needed in 10 years?
Often road widening is based on projections (which are almost universally wrong): https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/09/09/every-traffic-pr...
Often road widening is based on projections (which are almost universally wrong): https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/09/09/every-traffic-pr...
The post you're responding to was pretty obviously sarcastic... Note their use of quotes around "socialism" and "the free market, and the phrase "any day now".
So the other poster was making the exact same point that you made (unsarcastically), but it sounds like you may not have realized that? At any rate, you both seem to be largely in agreement about the current state of affairs.
So the other poster was making the exact same point that you made (unsarcastically), but it sounds like you may not have realized that? At any rate, you both seem to be largely in agreement about the current state of affairs.
Our "state expenses" in no way reflect the immediate needs of the people or any kind of popular democratic will. The average citizen in the US gets extremely little from the state relative to the taxes they pay, so opposing higher taxes is very rational.
Agreed. It's not the amount of taxes per se, it's the (perception of) value. Few are favor of higher taxes because they currently feel that they get (next to) nothing from what they pay now. Who wants to pay more for more nothing??
> Few are favor of higher taxes because they currently feel that they get (next to) nothing from what they pay now. Who wants to pay more for more nothing??
Interestingly, a lot of these people also aren't in favor of paying less for less nothing.
Interestingly, a lot of these people also aren't in favor of paying less for less nothing.
You're going to have to unpack that please. Where are ppl against lower taxes?
If public spending is socialism then why don't states that don't the one party blue states that don't get antsy about "socialism" have great infrastructure?
No blue state is actually okay with socialism at any higher level. The Democrat party leadership hates left-wing politics. Just the other day Pete Buttigieg was trying to explain how we can't solve baby formula problems the socialist way so children have to starve for the sake of factory owners:
> Biden’s secretary of transportation, Pete Buttigieg, has argued that this kind of socialist experiment would be unacceptable — even to stop babies from starving to death. “Let’s be very clear,” Buttigieg told CBS, “This is a capitalist country. The government does not make baby formula, nor should it. Companies make baby formula.”
(For the record, "Socialism" would not fix the US's bridge or baby formula woes because they are both the results of decades of neglect and bad policy that can't be undone in a year.)
> Biden’s secretary of transportation, Pete Buttigieg, has argued that this kind of socialist experiment would be unacceptable — even to stop babies from starving to death. “Let’s be very clear,” Buttigieg told CBS, “This is a capitalist country. The government does not make baby formula, nor should it. Companies make baby formula.”
(For the record, "Socialism" would not fix the US's bridge or baby formula woes because they are both the results of decades of neglect and bad policy that can't be undone in a year.)
I'm also a bit confused why that came up, considering he's head of transportation. Do they also concern themselves with manufacturing?
He had previous in the last couple of days mentioned that him and his husband were unable to find formula for their baby so the question likely came up again since he already had spoken out on the matter. I don't know the context in which it came up days ago. Perhaps it was in a more open ended "get to know" type of interview he was doing.
Biden's approval numbers are absolute garbage - I suspect he'll have a contested run in 2024 (or "voluntarily" decline to run) and all the sharks want to start getting their names in the headlines.
> “This is a capitalist country. The government does not make baby formula, nor should it. Companies make baby formula.”
Singapore would disagree that government manufacture of baby formula represents socialism. The government can do what it wants without impairing the market. Where socialism comes in is when the government intervenes to protect its baby formula industry, by barring competitors from participating in the market or by subsidizing its own formula manufacture with tax revenues.
Singapore would disagree that government manufacture of baby formula represents socialism. The government can do what it wants without impairing the market. Where socialism comes in is when the government intervenes to protect its baby formula industry, by barring competitors from participating in the market or by subsidizing its own formula manufacture with tax revenues.
Are interstates recipients of Federal funding or only state funding?
> If public spending is socialism
It isn't, my comment is a jab on US politics and discourse; though neoliberalism and "minarchism" has corroded the existing infrastructure through "austerity" (money redirection towards forever wars and imperialism) and red-scare tactics.
It isn't, my comment is a jab on US politics and discourse; though neoliberalism and "minarchism" has corroded the existing infrastructure through "austerity" (money redirection towards forever wars and imperialism) and red-scare tactics.
The Democrats passed $1,000,000,000,000 Dollar "infrastructure" bill, of which 5% of which "went" to roads and bridges, and give the effectiveness of the government spending money, that's about .05% actually making it to the street. So one bridge might get fixed.
Do you have a source for your "5%" claim? That conflicts with what I'm seeing here: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-does-only-11-percent-bil...
> The 2,702-page bipartisan bill, summarized in a fact sheet issued by the White House, contains $550 billion in new spending, in addition to funding allocated each year for various infrastructure projects. The allocation for roads and bridges ($110 billion), railroads ($66 billion), airports ($25 billion) and ports ($17 billion) alone totals $218 billion, which is just over 18 percent of the overall spending over the 10-year period— significantly higher than the 11 percent touted by Trump.
> An additional $240 billion is going toward upgrading and improving the nation's power grids ($73 billion), water infrastructure ($55 billion, plus another $8 billion for Western water infrastructure in response to ongoing droughts across the West), public transit systems ($39 billion) and broadband ($65 billion). In the past, all of that has typically fallen under the "public infrastructure" umbrella and would raise the share of "real infrastructure" to at least 38 percent.
> The addition of more contentious elements that arguably fall under a looser definition of public infrastructure—such as safety enhancements ($11 billion), electric vehicle charging stations ($7.5 billion) and electric school buses ($7.5 billion), along with $47 billion for cybersecurity and climate change mitigation—would tip the total over 44 percent.
> The 2,702-page bipartisan bill, summarized in a fact sheet issued by the White House, contains $550 billion in new spending, in addition to funding allocated each year for various infrastructure projects. The allocation for roads and bridges ($110 billion), railroads ($66 billion), airports ($25 billion) and ports ($17 billion) alone totals $218 billion, which is just over 18 percent of the overall spending over the 10-year period— significantly higher than the 11 percent touted by Trump.
> An additional $240 billion is going toward upgrading and improving the nation's power grids ($73 billion), water infrastructure ($55 billion, plus another $8 billion for Western water infrastructure in response to ongoing droughts across the West), public transit systems ($39 billion) and broadband ($65 billion). In the past, all of that has typically fallen under the "public infrastructure" umbrella and would raise the share of "real infrastructure" to at least 38 percent.
> The addition of more contentious elements that arguably fall under a looser definition of public infrastructure—such as safety enhancements ($11 billion), electric vehicle charging stations ($7.5 billion) and electric school buses ($7.5 billion), along with $47 billion for cybersecurity and climate change mitigation—would tip the total over 44 percent.
There's a lot to unpack here. Guy enters the news for being the good guy donating a baseball to a museum instead of collecting a big check for it. Later, on his way to a baseball game while discussing things with a "fellow attorney" he falls through a hole in a public bridge?
Is there an award for greatest plaintiff advantage? I can imagine him on stage next to a school bus full of paralegal orphans. Glad the dude is okay.
Is there an award for greatest plaintiff advantage? I can imagine him on stage next to a school bus full of paralegal orphans. Glad the dude is okay.
After the record-breaking Mark McGwire home runs years ago, the IRS went after the people who ended up with the balls, arguing that even if they didn't sell them, the balls represented reportable income. Just another thing to think about.
Given that the guy who caught the Albert Pujols ball donated it to a 501c3, there's really not much to think about.
He gets to deduct the whole value, though, right?
Yes, his income increases by whatever the value of the ball is when he takes ownership of the ball and he deducts the same amount when he donates it to a 501c3. How else could that possibly work?
Obviously, the deduction cannot reach any of his other income, because it is, by definition, consumed by the value of the ball.
Obviously, the deduction cannot reach any of his other income, because it is, by definition, consumed by the value of the ball.
Under a truly strict reading of the law, there might be some problems since the guy might not itemize deductions, in which case there's a pretty modest limit to the total value of charitable deductions he can make, which he might not have declared anyhow. Which might or might not be a problem depending on the dollar value of the ball he received and immediately gave away, if the whole thing came to the attention of the IRS. They theoretically might potentially want him to refile and itemize his deductions if they had an opinion about the value of the ball, and that refiling could affect his refund for that year by a small amount.
This all falls pretty firmly in the "who gives a shit?" area of tax law.
This all falls pretty firmly in the "who gives a shit?" area of tax law.
You’re right. Misremembered the case where the ball had appreciated. Same behavior.
And he didn't just fall through the bridge, he dusted himself off and went to the game anyways! Guy didn't even go to the hospital for days despite being obviously concussed...
Funny thing about brain injuries... we don't always make the best decisions in their aftermath.
He also lost his 21 month old son in 2018. Poor guy.
I lived not far from here when I was in Detroit. Honestly this guy is lucky not to be seriously injured.
The highway, M-10 or the Lodge Freeway, in my opinion should be converted to a boulevard that supports multimodal transit. This freeway cut off my neighborhood from the more vibrant (as it can get for Detroit) downtown and midtown neighborhoods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-10_(Michigan_highway)
The highway, M-10 or the Lodge Freeway, in my opinion should be converted to a boulevard that supports multimodal transit. This freeway cut off my neighborhood from the more vibrant (as it can get for Detroit) downtown and midtown neighborhoods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-10_(Michigan_highway)
Saw that story this morning and it really took me back. Further up that freeway there is another bridge that my sister and I crossed each day to go to school. For Detroiters on here it's Edison Elementary and unlike a lot of Detroit schools it's still open;<). The difference is when we walked it the bridge was fairly new. Sure hope that there's a state agency watching at least old bridges that school kids use.
From the article, MDOT is supposed to be doing yearly inspections on all of these bridges, but they clearly skimped on that the last couple of years or they would have closed this one sooner. They are kinda responsive to heavily trafficked ones -- I used to have to take I-96 to M-39 (Southfield Fwy) and the ramp between them had a large hole you could see the next layer down through for a couple weeks before they repaved, and it was only like 6 more months from when that happened that they redid the whole ramp, making my commute unbearable for a month.
Well then someone isn't doing their job! I wonder if the past two years if they got to work from home?
Remember a few years ago when the freeways flooded and they found out copper thieves had stolen the copper out of their pumping stations! They should have known to check because one of them who was a bit learning deficient electrocuted themselves and it made the news.
Remember a few years ago when the freeways flooded and they found out copper thieves had stolen the copper out of their pumping stations! They should have known to check because one of them who was a bit learning deficient electrocuted themselves and it made the news.
There really is no reason to have this freeway there. It makes the area worse and goes nowhere.
This being the United states, I'll go ahead and assume it was designed to go through (or isolate) a black neighborhood.
Not really applicable, as Detroit is one of the blackest cities in the U.S., with ~80% black population. It's a high-speed corridor from the northern and northwestern suburbs to downtown. The east, west, and south also have freeways heading downtown.
Isn’t it sort of a gift to be cut off from downtown Detroit? I’ve never been there but I’ve got an acquaintance who was held at gun point while fueling in “vibrant” downtown Detroit…
I live in Detroit, a couple of miles north of downtown. I wouldn’t think twice about wandering around downtown, anywhere downtown, at any hour of the day or night. It’s just not dangerous at all.
There are certainly neighborhoods where I wouldn’t do that, but the most surprising thing for me when I moved here was how aggressively friendly everybody is, and how off-base the “Detroit is a crime-ridden wasteland” comments are.
There are certainly neighborhoods where I wouldn’t do that, but the most surprising thing for me when I moved here was how aggressively friendly everybody is, and how off-base the “Detroit is a crime-ridden wasteland” comments are.
Yep. It's not like crime doesn't exist, but you're probably not going to encounter it unless you're a criminal or unlucky. Almost all of the murders are about drug money.
There is someone who was held at gunpoint in pretty much every town on earth.
Poor guy.
Stupid jokes aside, the safest city on earth has victims of crime.
Poor guy.
Stupid jokes aside, the safest city on earth has victims of crime.
You and I both know Detroit is very far from the safest city on earth. It’s among the most dangerous in the U.S.
Eh. It's #14 for Violent Crime / Robbery, behind a pretty interesting list of other cities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
The main thing I'm getting from that list is that I sure don't remember Fremont being some kind of mecca, of safety or otherwise. So that's surprising.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
The main thing I'm getting from that list is that I sure don't remember Fremont being some kind of mecca, of safety or otherwise. So that's surprising.
#3 in murder, after St. Louis and Baltimore.
The thing about the cities in really bad shape is that all we get is the reported crime rate, which tends to be lower. Murder rates are a more accurate statistic since you can't ignore a body like a jacked car or a rape.
The thing about the cities in really bad shape is that all we get is the reported crime rate, which tends to be lower. Murder rates are a more accurate statistic since you can't ignore a body like a jacked car or a rape.
Man there's a case in Virginia where they did just that.
I always look at bridges and wonder who inspects all of our infrastructure and how often. Looking at the underneath picture of that bridge, it appears absolutely no one is inspecting these things.
How bad are things getting when we can't even trust the bridges we walk and drive on?
How bad are things getting when we can't even trust the bridges we walk and drive on?
I think there's a gap between an inspector turning in a report and the repairs being prioritized, funded, and executed. Out here in Oregon we had a tunnel collapse and kill the inspector (this was back in 1999). News reported that the tunnel was inspected twice the year before it collapsed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_L._Edwards_Tunnel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_L._Edwards_Tunnel
The rebar is totally rusted. Last properly inspected maybe a decade ago. It takes time to get to that state of deterioration.
Also a hazard to traffic below from chunks falling off.
Also a hazard to traffic below from chunks falling off.
The state of infrastructure, both physical and technical, in this country is quite sorry.
There would be plenty of well paid union and trades jobs to be had if we could pony up the funds to rehab, repair, and replace the crumbling bridges, roads, pipelines, sewers, etc across the country.
There would be plenty of well paid union and trades jobs to be had if we could pony up the funds to rehab, repair, and replace the crumbling bridges, roads, pipelines, sewers, etc across the country.
The country has totally forgotten the concept of the greater good and to invest in basic infrastructure that benefits everybody. It’s all about profit for some groups. You see the same in healthcare. Nobody can seriously argue that the current setup is beneficial for the country as a whole but the people and institutions that benefit from the dysfunction will fight any changes tooth and nail.
The country attempted to move forward on infrastructure, but the bill died in an anti-democratic institution dominated by right-wing austerity hawks (the US Senate).
Those people are not austerity hawks. They are austerity hawks if and only if the President is a Democrat. Otherwise they run budget deficits.
Bridges can be fixed without federal laws. It's ridiculous to blame all poor infrastructure on a single law failing to pass.
It's not really ridiculous when the federal government controls the power to issue currency. Any infrastructure improvement that occurs at the local level needs to be paid for by either tax or debt. Taxes take money out of a local economy and debt is typically more expensive for local municipalities.
The federal government can borrow at extremely low interest and literally create currency if needed. If the infrastructure expands the productivity of the economy as a whole that currency creation does not contribute to inflation.
At a macro level bridges enable more efficient commerce, so issuing currency to pay for them can be the most optimal way forward for the society. If the bridge saves 1,000 farmers $150,000 in fuel/transportation cost over the course of its life, that bridge created $150,000,000 of new value in the economy.
The federal government can borrow at extremely low interest and literally create currency if needed. If the infrastructure expands the productivity of the economy as a whole that currency creation does not contribute to inflation.
At a macro level bridges enable more efficient commerce, so issuing currency to pay for them can be the most optimal way forward for the society. If the bridge saves 1,000 farmers $150,000 in fuel/transportation cost over the course of its life, that bridge created $150,000,000 of new value in the economy.
jaywalk(1)
I am from India and just yesterday I saw episode of John Oliver related to state of Utilities in the US [1]. After that episode I was like thank God we don't have issues like this. The energy infrastructure in India is mostly owned by Government companies and yeah their are some issues but the grid works and it is maintained surprisingly well.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-YRSqaPtMg
Edit: I am getting down voted lol. Maybe our infrastructure is not producing as much Energy as US but I am mostly talking about Grid. I guess I should have cleared that.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-YRSqaPtMg
Edit: I am getting down voted lol. Maybe our infrastructure is not producing as much Energy as US but I am mostly talking about Grid. I guess I should have cleared that.
I used to visit Bengaluru pretty frequently. The grid is a mess. Besides the very visible - and visibly dangerous - rats' nests of wires just about everywhere, it wasn't very reliable. My colleagues had outages all the time. We couldn't put a data center there for lack of decent power. And this in the relatively affluent parts of a city often touted as a (if not the) high-tech center of the country. I'd guess you're getting downvoted because many here have first hand experience directly contrary to what you're saying. Your experience is what it is, but it's clearly not as generalizable as you make it out to be.
I think perhaps then you got the wrong idea then because generally the service provided by utilities in the U.S. is far-and-away superior to that provided in India.
Not sure if you lived in India briefly or where you lived to have bad experience with the power companies. But I can attest that service in one of the most remote regions of India is very good. There are no power cuts and if there are because of some storm or other natural disaster they are resolved within 2-3 days.
I lived in Bengaluru for several years.
In the U.S. we expect to be able to drink the water that comes from the tap, cutting off entire parts of a city for a day or more from the water supply is largely unheard of; same for electricity. We expect actual storm drains and sewage works as opposed to streets just flooding every time there's rain. etc.
I'm not trying to be "down" on India but - having lived with both systems - the U.S. experience is objectively better from every point of view other than price.
In the U.S. we expect to be able to drink the water that comes from the tap, cutting off entire parts of a city for a day or more from the water supply is largely unheard of; same for electricity. We expect actual storm drains and sewage works as opposed to streets just flooding every time there's rain. etc.
I'm not trying to be "down" on India but - having lived with both systems - the U.S. experience is objectively better from every point of view other than price.
When was this?
I never lived in Bengaluru but I have lived all over Maharashtra and power cuts use to be norm almost over a decade ago but it has changed over last decade.
I never lived in Bengaluru but I have lived all over Maharashtra and power cuts use to be norm almost over a decade ago but it has changed over last decade.
Within the past decade.
> In the U.S. we expect to be able to drink the water that comes from the tap, cutting off entire parts of a city for a day or more from the water supply is largely unheard of
The population of Flint might disagree, although technically that water kept running while poisoning its population.
The population of Flint might disagree, although technically that water kept running while poisoning its population.
No; the people in Flint would entirely agree that they expected to be able to drink their water - that's why it was such an outrage that they couldn't.
On the other hand, the fact Puri, in Odisha, got safe drinking water from the tap was a major news story last year - since it was the first city in India to have that, and even just general availability of piped water at all is uncertain for many in India - many, many people get water delivered by road on tankers.
On the other hand, the fact Puri, in Odisha, got safe drinking water from the tap was a major news story last year - since it was the first city in India to have that, and even just general availability of piped water at all is uncertain for many in India - many, many people get water delivered by road on tankers.
Service to the remote regions of the US is very good, even in places with far less population density than India. There are sometimes power outages, but not very often, and they are resolved fast. It has been this way since the 1950s for most people. (the exceptions are rare enough that you cannot compare the rate of them between countries)
Now the US has some very remote regions that don't have good power. When it is miles between humans there isn't enough demand to put up wires, but the only people living in those areas like being self sufficient and wouldn't want utility power if they could get it.
Now the US has some very remote regions that don't have good power. When it is miles between humans there isn't enough demand to put up wires, but the only people living in those areas like being self sufficient and wouldn't want utility power if they could get it.
It’s not a funding problem.
The US funds infrastructure handsomely. In fact we probably even over-fund it.
Unfortunately we get very little back for all that funding. If you compare costs for rail and airports and bridges in the US to Europe or Asia, we pay for one bridge what other similar countries pay for three, four, or five bridges.
The US funds infrastructure handsomely. In fact we probably even over-fund it.
Unfortunately we get very little back for all that funding. If you compare costs for rail and airports and bridges in the US to Europe or Asia, we pay for one bridge what other similar countries pay for three, four, or five bridges.
Atlanta paid $23 million for a pedestrian bridge over a four lane street that they claimed cost so much because it needed to be completed in time for the Super Bowl. It was closed during the Super Bowl for security reasons.
You're not at all wrong that we don't see the benefit we should for each dollar spent, and I wish we could see some systemic fixes to address these issues beyond the age old "throw more money at the problem"
I will add a fresh anecdote however. I was recently involved in bidding a project for a municipality, it was a FEMA mandated sewer improvement project. There was one respondent to the RFP (ours), that was substantially higher than the Engineer's Estimate. Aspects of the bid are still under review by state offices and FEMA, thus the bid was rejected, and the project will circle back for another round.
Was the bid high? Was the Engineer's Estimate low? Both? Why did no other contractors bid on the job?
There only being one respondent can certainly have pushed the price higher. I know for a fact that my portion of the work was estimated responsibly, but it was nonetheless expensive due to a tight schedule required by the city, and restrictions placed upon the work by proximity to residences and historic structures of concern.
Can the schedule be opened up to allow for less pressure? Can the specifications or restrictions be relaxed? What will entice other parties to bid? Can the review process by outside agencies be sped up to allow for the project to proceed? In my experience, such reviews always eat away at the project lead-up time, without respective time added to the schedule to allow the work to be performed. It's a lose-lose.
And I kinda lost what I was even going for here. Anyway, you can see any number of stumbling blocks that can be addressed, for one small sewer project. Expand this to public works across the country and imagine it.
I will add a fresh anecdote however. I was recently involved in bidding a project for a municipality, it was a FEMA mandated sewer improvement project. There was one respondent to the RFP (ours), that was substantially higher than the Engineer's Estimate. Aspects of the bid are still under review by state offices and FEMA, thus the bid was rejected, and the project will circle back for another round.
Was the bid high? Was the Engineer's Estimate low? Both? Why did no other contractors bid on the job?
There only being one respondent can certainly have pushed the price higher. I know for a fact that my portion of the work was estimated responsibly, but it was nonetheless expensive due to a tight schedule required by the city, and restrictions placed upon the work by proximity to residences and historic structures of concern.
Can the schedule be opened up to allow for less pressure? Can the specifications or restrictions be relaxed? What will entice other parties to bid? Can the review process by outside agencies be sped up to allow for the project to proceed? In my experience, such reviews always eat away at the project lead-up time, without respective time added to the schedule to allow the work to be performed. It's a lose-lose.
And I kinda lost what I was even going for here. Anyway, you can see any number of stumbling blocks that can be addressed, for one small sewer project. Expand this to public works across the country and imagine it.
Well... our stuff costs more because we're having to pay so much extra for the social safety nets like universal health insurance... Oh... wait... nm.
It's funny but up here in Canada employees cost companies a lot less overhead to employ than in the states. Not the bear minimum overhead, mind you, the states is by far the cheapest place to be able to call someone "your employee" without offering any benefits but if you're actually paying for healthcare, life insurance and the like Canadian per employee costs come in quite a bit under those in the US.
It's almost like skimping on common human decency social services isn't actually saving anyone any money and just serves to perpetuate a gigantic industry of health insurers and pharmaceutical companies.
It's almost like skimping on common human decency social services isn't actually saving anyone any money and just serves to perpetuate a gigantic industry of health insurers and pharmaceutical companies.
The US government is also spending massive amounts of healthcare without actually delivering healthcare to way too many people. The whole system is bonkers.
I think you meant graft and corruption :D
In my experience the productivity of American construction workers seems to be shockingly poor.
A few years back a small single-story structure (~5000 sqft) was built near me. Every workday a plethora of workers would show up and make noise 8-5. Somehow took them the better part of a year to finish it. Really beggars belief.
A few years back a small single-story structure (~5000 sqft) was built near me. Every workday a plethora of workers would show up and make noise 8-5. Somehow took them the better part of a year to finish it. Really beggars belief.
That seems long for a 5000sqft house: I'd expect 150 days max from the time the hole is dug until the owner moves in. (smaller houses would be 100 days). You didn't specify what kind of structure it is though, some types of construction need more time.
Most people who complain about people standing around have no idea what is going on. Half of the time someone is moving materials they are completely empty handed going back to the pile for more materials. In some operations there is downtime where nothing can be done, but the need to do more work will happen soon enough that you can't send anyone to a different job (concrete work has a lot of this)
Most people who complain about people standing around have no idea what is going on. Half of the time someone is moving materials they are completely empty handed going back to the pile for more materials. In some operations there is downtime where nothing can be done, but the need to do more work will happen soon enough that you can't send anyone to a different job (concrete work has a lot of this)
> That seems long for a 5000sqft house: I'd expect 150 days max from the time the hole is dug until the owner moves in.
Maybe for a production-builder built tract house, although I bet a lot of those are built in parallel and not sequentially in order to maximize throughput.
But for a custom 5000sqft house, 150 days is a very tight timeline if you're not using pre-manufactured modular framing components like SIPs.
Even if you did build with modular framing, consider the amount of interior detailing required on such a massive living space (probably many bathrooms and a huge kitchen). That takes a lot of time.
Maybe for a production-builder built tract house, although I bet a lot of those are built in parallel and not sequentially in order to maximize throughput.
But for a custom 5000sqft house, 150 days is a very tight timeline if you're not using pre-manufactured modular framing components like SIPs.
Even if you did build with modular framing, consider the amount of interior detailing required on such a massive living space (probably many bathrooms and a huge kitchen). That takes a lot of time.
The construction site near me has 4 workers whose only job is to watch trucks going in and out of the site…there is no disbelief coming from me after seeing that
In NYC, it's common for cranes to be rented for construction work - the company that owns the crane is responsible for maintenance etc. However, the crane worker's union requires that the contractor performing the building work hire a master mechanic, as well as oilers (no, really) for the crane, as well as the actual crane operator who sits in the cabin and does the work.
Usually, these people are not permitted by the crane owner actually to perform any work on the crane at all.
By the way, salary for a master mechanic in NYC is around $150,000 p/a.
Usually, these people are not permitted by the crane owner actually to perform any work on the crane at all.
By the way, salary for a master mechanic in NYC is around $150,000 p/a.
This article on MTA construction in NYC gives a good overview of the kind of money that goes to waste due to union worksite staffing requirements
https://secondavenuesagas.com/2018/01/01/inside-times-deep-d...
https://secondavenuesagas.com/2018/01/01/inside-times-deep-d...
I've seen sites catch fines for having mud, dirt, or rocks fall from trucks leaving onto the roads, so I get where they're coming from. 4 workers doing it? Jeez.
If they are building something large I could see it. A hospital could easily have 4 different construction entrances to watch.
2 workers each on 2 entrances
It's a complex situation. I have a relative who works for MDOT and apparently for road marking painting there are only 3 contractors in the state who do it. One of them wanted to buy one of the others and only stopped when they realized that being down to 2 contractors would hit the mark for "extreme consolidation" and would allow MDOT to go out-of-state for counter-bids.
To some extent the more rules and oversight you put in, the more you chase out any "honest participants". I've seen it personally in federal contracting, the only participants who can get through the bidding process are the exact companies (like the big 5) who you don't want doing your project. The oversight and complexity of the bidding process chases out anyone who is not willing to spend half their time on meetings and contract overhead if that's what the customer is willing to pay for. It's the dead-sea effect but for contracting, if you chase out the good participants and then tighten the noose, you will just end up with worse and worse participant quality on average every time you repeat the process.
There's no easy answer.
To some extent the more rules and oversight you put in, the more you chase out any "honest participants". I've seen it personally in federal contracting, the only participants who can get through the bidding process are the exact companies (like the big 5) who you don't want doing your project. The oversight and complexity of the bidding process chases out anyone who is not willing to spend half their time on meetings and contract overhead if that's what the customer is willing to pay for. It's the dead-sea effect but for contracting, if you chase out the good participants and then tighten the noose, you will just end up with worse and worse participant quality on average every time you repeat the process.
There's no easy answer.
I had a conversation with one of the city engineers in Ann Arbor once about why a street near my house was gravel for like 6 months, and he said that one of the big asphalt contractors had bought out the one that bid on that single block of repaving and then wouldn't do the project on anything like the original timing because they needed the equipment elsewhere. At this point, there's only one or two road asphalt contractors that do anything in greater metro Detroit, so it's hard to get stuff done on time and in budget. It also didn't help that we had a strike from the union that does the work for that contractor and shut down major projects for an extended period in 2018 or 2019.
Beyond that, we have a history of not making good on things like road warranties -- the state called in the warranty on I-275 back in the 90's and that caused the construction company to literally go bankrupt, so now there's a general reluctance to call in major warranty work. For instance, they haven't replaced the chunk of I-94 near the Indiana border that feels like you're in a paint mixer because the steamroller that did those few miles had a bad bearing, but everyone over there knows about it. It's getting replaced nearly a decade later in the next 6~18 months because that section just needs repaving in general now.
Beyond that, we have a history of not making good on things like road warranties -- the state called in the warranty on I-275 back in the 90's and that caused the construction company to literally go bankrupt, so now there's a general reluctance to call in major warranty work. For instance, they haven't replaced the chunk of I-94 near the Indiana border that feels like you're in a paint mixer because the steamroller that did those few miles had a bad bearing, but everyone over there knows about it. It's getting replaced nearly a decade later in the next 6~18 months because that section just needs repaving in general now.
This is correct - Through marriage I've met some insanely powerful people who fix our highways/build bridges on the East Coast. These mother fuckers are loaded and they're seriously assholes seeing as I would've never met them by chance and people with money stick together. This is the true answer. There are only a small number of companies who have the logistics/money to actually bid and complete projects like these. It also takes years to do one project, so when there is only a small number of companies who can ever legally / viability afford these jobs this is what we get. Every sector seems to have a big 5. Tech, Finance, Construction, etc;
Also, the larger the contract the bigger you need to be to attempt to bid on it. I could bid on building the proverbial bikeshed (as a programmer it wouldn't make economic sense, but I could do the work), but no way could I bid a bridge. However if you break the bridge down there are a number of operations I could bid on and get done. However that breakdown requires more oversight and work on the governments par, so for a bridge that is probably too much breakdown. Somewhere there is a point where projects are too big, and thus only the big 5 dare bid on them, we need to break projects down smaller than that, but not too small.
> There's no easy answer.
Seems like a fairly easy one, MDOT opens a few job reqs for road marking painting, buys some trucks, and paints lines on our roads. Private contractors makes a lot of sense in some situations, but this doesn't seem like one. MDOT knows how many roads need to be marked, how often, etc, why pay a private company to do so?
Seems like a fairly easy one, MDOT opens a few job reqs for road marking painting, buys some trucks, and paints lines on our roads. Private contractors makes a lot of sense in some situations, but this doesn't seem like one. MDOT knows how many roads need to be marked, how often, etc, why pay a private company to do so?
Don't just look at the "big 5". I know people there. A lot of the things people get frustrated about are things MDOT requires them to do.
Not long ago I was listening to someone at one of those "big 5" companies complain about how new state rules were radically increasing the time it takes to pave a road while increasing costs, too. All with no quality difference in the end. As a tax payer, they were frustrated by it.
Not long ago I was listening to someone at one of those "big 5" companies complain about how new state rules were radically increasing the time it takes to pave a road while increasing costs, too. All with no quality difference in the end. As a tax payer, they were frustrated by it.
What specifically? I can run it by that relative and see what he thinks.
He's also expressed the inverse to me, that a lot of times they are trying to get the contractors to do things a specific way and the contractors just wanna rush through as fast as they can and get to the next contract. Sometimes, like in most engineering, there are reasons things need to be done a specific way, but building a road isn't really a collaborative thing, they just need to build it the way it was ordered.
He's also expressed the inverse to me, that a lot of times they are trying to get the contractors to do things a specific way and the contractors just wanna rush through as fast as they can and get to the next contract. Sometimes, like in most engineering, there are reasons things need to be done a specific way, but building a road isn't really a collaborative thing, they just need to build it the way it was ordered.
Similar to the software industry, politicians don't get elected for maintaining old bridges. They get elected by building new bridges.
Can you explain more about how this works? Even if we're being totally cynical and seeing politics entirely in terms of who can distribute favors within their network (which I think is at best partly true), it seems to me contracts to repair or rebuild bridges could be at least as lucrative as building a new bridge.
I don't think it necessarily has to be about kickbacks - it's also about acclaim and reputation?
In software, you talk about a project you headed or a new feature you developed when you're looking at promotions. In a political career, a new bridge or a new project has more advantages than simply upkeeping an old one for basically the same reason - it can be associated with you specifically in a stronger way, you can talk about it as an accomplishment to more people. "I funded repairs so this bridge didn't fall" is a lot more of a non event, at least until the bridge actually falls and someone has to be blamed.
In software, you talk about a project you headed or a new feature you developed when you're looking at promotions. In a political career, a new bridge or a new project has more advantages than simply upkeeping an old one for basically the same reason - it can be associated with you specifically in a stronger way, you can talk about it as an accomplishment to more people. "I funded repairs so this bridge didn't fall" is a lot more of a non event, at least until the bridge actually falls and someone has to be blamed.
> I don't think it necessarily has to be about kickbacks - it's also about acclaim and reputation?
Exactly. The classic ground-breaking or ribbon cutting ceremonies attract a lot more acclaim than "We're going to shut down one lane of the road a a time for 3 months to re-pave it and make traffic living hell"
Exactly. The classic ground-breaking or ribbon cutting ceremonies attract a lot more acclaim than "We're going to shut down one lane of the road a a time for 3 months to re-pave it and make traffic living hell"
It's more that politicians respond to incentives -- repairing bridges requires money being spent and taxes going up, since states can't run at a deficit for very long. Often this angers voters. Similarly, people get pissed off about what we refer to in Michigan as "Orange Barrel Season" when you cant' get from here to there because of the construction snarling traffic. As a result, it doesn't build goodwill to maintain infrastructure before it's at the verge of catastrophic failure from a political standpoint. On the other hand, building new freeway through mostly farm fields has concentrated costs (the farmers losing land, who are then paid fairly well for the loss) with obvious benefits to everyone. It's pretty "no downside".
In Michigan we've also run into issues where infrastructure crumbles before the bonds that built it from scratch are paid off, which then causes significant pain in paying for repairs, since it requires all new taxes or significant other service cuts. This was one of the main arguments in the 2018 gubernatorial campaign and then in the early part of Whitmer's term.
In Michigan we've also run into issues where infrastructure crumbles before the bonds that built it from scratch are paid off, which then causes significant pain in paying for repairs, since it requires all new taxes or significant other service cuts. This was one of the main arguments in the 2018 gubernatorial campaign and then in the early part of Whitmer's term.
Or in the case of some politicians; How many bridges they can burn.
What is the deal with construction in the US, how is this allowed to happen?
Decades of neoliberal gutting and privatization has basically ruined the public sector & infrastructure in the US. What's left is crumbling and dangerous.
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.
Most of the stuff was planned and managed by companies like Bechtel, even during the depression.
[deleted]
This smacks of rhetoric, not an explanation.
What does "Neoliberal" and "privatization" has to do with a government not maintaining its bridge properly? Are the inspections or repairs outsourced?
> 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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
That reminds me of DB, the german railway company, sometimes trying to get bridges demolished and rebuilt from scratch instead of renovation, because if they are rebuilt, the federal government pays for it while a renovation has to be paid by the DB. The funny part is that the federal government owns 100% of the DB shares.
That reminds me of DB, the german railway company, sometimes trying to get bridges demolished and rebuilt from scratch instead of renovation, because if they are rebuilt, the federal government pays for it while a renovation has to be paid by the DB. The funny part is that the federal government owns 100% of the DB shares.
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).
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).
Virtually all of that work is through private contractors (most likely) or local governments.
When you ask about inefficiency, what incentives do private contractors have to not milk funds dry?
When you ask about inefficiency, what incentives do private contractors have to not milk funds dry?
There's a fun story in Ash Carter's book about the F-35 project. He wanted Lockhead Martin to start hitting cost targets. So in a meeting over it he warned that the pentagon would be curtailing it's order unless the targets were met. Reportedly the LM executive replied "you tell me how much money you have, and I'll tell you how many planes you get." This apparently pissed Carter off enough to reply "how about none" and walk out of the room to let them stew for a while.
Anyhow, end result was a renegotiation of the contract where overruns would largely come out of LM's side. Shockingly they suddenly started hitting the targets. /s
It's really hard to structure the incentives right here, and to some extent relies on having government leaders willing to rock the boat in negotiations.
Anyhow, end result was a renegotiation of the contract where overruns would largely come out of LM's side. Shockingly they suddenly started hitting the targets. /s
It's really hard to structure the incentives right here, and to some extent relies on having government leaders willing to rock the boat in negotiations.
Liquidated damages for not holding to schedule, having bonds taken, disbarment from future contracts due to poor performance to name a few. However these tend to lead to protracted claims processes and court battles.
Not enough incentives, in any case. I do believe that there should be more incentives for finishing under-budget and ahead or on schedule to allow rolling efficiently into the next project. Assuming these aren't perverse incentives that invite corner-cutting, record falsifying, and so on.
Not enough incentives, in any case. I do believe that there should be more incentives for finishing under-budget and ahead or on schedule to allow rolling efficiently into the next project. Assuming these aren't perverse incentives that invite corner-cutting, record falsifying, and so on.
I ask about efficiency because I'm interested in whether more money is a good investment.
I don't really care if the government or private contractors are doing the work. In either case, if the work being done is extremely inefficient, I'm less likely to vote for a candidate that wants more money to spend on roads.
I don't really care if the government or private contractors are doing the work. In either case, if the work being done is extremely inefficient, I'm less likely to vote for a candidate that wants more money to spend on roads.
> I ask about efficiency because I'm interested in whether more money is a good investment.
Maybe.
> I don't really care if the government or private contractors are doing the work.
Okay, so you really mean can government do a good job of funding a massive infrastructure project?
It can, but everything has been setup over decades to make it fail.
Is the government rarely allowed to break down large projects into smaller ones, and bidding happens on each small slice?
Why are incentives aligned to hamper this?
And how do you prevent different states battling to get a bigger slice, at the cost of others?
> In either case, if the work being done is extremely inefficient, I'm less likely to vote for a candidate that wants more money to spend on roads.
Increased spending doesn’t mean inefficiency. Not until you factor in pushed-off expenses.
If maintenance cost $1.00 per year but rebuilding costs $100.00 after 20 years of neglect; then wouldn’t you say the inefficiency was from the politicians that blocked/prevented said maintenance?
How much revenue do our bridges and roads generate? What would be the loss if even 30% of said roads were to crumble overnight?
Perhaps it’s just me, but I think being pennywise and pound foolish as bad thing.
Maybe.
> I don't really care if the government or private contractors are doing the work.
Okay, so you really mean can government do a good job of funding a massive infrastructure project?
It can, but everything has been setup over decades to make it fail.
Is the government rarely allowed to break down large projects into smaller ones, and bidding happens on each small slice?
Why are incentives aligned to hamper this?
And how do you prevent different states battling to get a bigger slice, at the cost of others?
> In either case, if the work being done is extremely inefficient, I'm less likely to vote for a candidate that wants more money to spend on roads.
Increased spending doesn’t mean inefficiency. Not until you factor in pushed-off expenses.
If maintenance cost $1.00 per year but rebuilding costs $100.00 after 20 years of neglect; then wouldn’t you say the inefficiency was from the politicians that blocked/prevented said maintenance?
How much revenue do our bridges and roads generate? What would be the loss if even 30% of said roads were to crumble overnight?
Perhaps it’s just me, but I think being pennywise and pound foolish as bad thing.
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?
How many workers for particular jobs do you think is appropriate?
Where did you get this information and why is it correct?
Were you offended by my comment? I'm asking someone familiar with the industry exactly because I don't know the answers.
I paved highways for 5 years. The people standing around are because there is a surprising amount of manual labor involved. One example that isn’t obvious is raking. Sometimes rocks slip through the cracks at the hot plant and the paver leaves big rocks in the hot mix. There need to be at least one guy just standing around looking at the asphalt to get the rocks out and throw in replacement hot mix between the first and second rollers.
Asphalt is mostly crushed rock, and you need different sizes of rock from fines to bean size. Part of the QA process is checking that the rock mix is composed of the right ratios and have enough faces to meet the spec. This is done with random samples from the asphalt as it’s laid down. They also check the temp, if it’s too cool it won’t work. So they mostly stand around. On the other side of the paving train is another QA where they use a radioactive density meter to check the asphalt after the rollers hit it, and they also take core samples along the joint to confirm the rollers are doing right.
Then there is a guy from DOT supervising. The State owns the roads, he’s there making sure no one is cutting corners and to coordinate the train with the supervisor of the crew.
Add in a couple more hands to rake/shovel (think guardrails etc) and it LOOKS like 5 guys working and 10 standing around but it’s 15 people taking turns in a continuously moving operation, often in live traffic
Asphalt is mostly crushed rock, and you need different sizes of rock from fines to bean size. Part of the QA process is checking that the rock mix is composed of the right ratios and have enough faces to meet the spec. This is done with random samples from the asphalt as it’s laid down. They also check the temp, if it’s too cool it won’t work. So they mostly stand around. On the other side of the paving train is another QA where they use a radioactive density meter to check the asphalt after the rollers hit it, and they also take core samples along the joint to confirm the rollers are doing right.
Then there is a guy from DOT supervising. The State owns the roads, he’s there making sure no one is cutting corners and to coordinate the train with the supervisor of the crew.
Add in a couple more hands to rake/shovel (think guardrails etc) and it LOOKS like 5 guys working and 10 standing around but it’s 15 people taking turns in a continuously moving operation, often in live traffic
(non US perspective here) Another element is that a lot of the expense is closing the road, site management, safety setups, materials, having the plant (machinery) on site etc.
Despite being visible, having relatively cheap workers hang around when their role is not needed 100% of the time doesn't add much to the overall cost.
And you can't effectively redeploy them elsewhere to other jobs during those gaps anyway.
Despite being visible, having relatively cheap workers hang around when their role is not needed 100% of the time doesn't add much to the overall cost.
And you can't effectively redeploy them elsewhere to other jobs during those gaps anyway.
Thank you for your in-depth response. I appreciate hearing from people with first hand experience on topics that I don't personally have experience with. There's things we don't think about when its so far out of our usual field of expertise.
Not quite, I'm offended by people assuming they know the correct answer about something and making baseless assertions.
Asking your friend first would have been the move
This is something that seems to happen in the US on a constant basis. People just assume they know or understand things that they have never learned about nor had contact with and then we get people voting and making policy decisions based on that info that was pulled out of someone's ass
Asking your friend first would have been the move
This is something that seems to happen in the US on a constant basis. People just assume they know or understand things that they have never learned about nor had contact with and then we get people voting and making policy decisions based on that info that was pulled out of someone's ass
> This is something that seems to happen in the US on a constant basis. People just assume they know or understand things that they have never learned about nor had contact with and then we get people voting and making policy decisions based on that info that was pulled out of someone's ass
Thank God that sort of thing is limited to the United States.
Thank God that sort of thing is limited to the United States.
I know you're likely being sarcastic and I definitely understand. I can only speak to my experience and that's in the US, although I can't reasonably doubt that it happens elsewhere
> Asking your friend first would have been the move
How did you know I didn't ask a friend first? And second, if my friend agreed these are good questions, then I get to ask an expert? Or do I have to ask more friends? How many unknowledgeable people do I have to ask before I get to ask someone knowledgeable to get an answer?
> Not quite, I'm offended by people assuming they know the correct answer about something and making baseless assertions.
Thirdly, who are you to say any of my assertions are baseless? You don't know if any of my other experience is relevant enough to form a meaningful base on which to pose a question.
How did you know I didn't ask a friend first? And second, if my friend agreed these are good questions, then I get to ask an expert? Or do I have to ask more friends? How many unknowledgeable people do I have to ask before I get to ask someone knowledgeable to get an answer?
> Not quite, I'm offended by people assuming they know the correct answer about something and making baseless assertions.
Thirdly, who are you to say any of my assertions are baseless? You don't know if any of my other experience is relevant enough to form a meaningful base on which to pose a question.
Word and phrase choice indicated that this was your perspective as a driver
I'm wondering why you chose to respond to me rather than the person who chimed in with solid experience and an explanation for you.
I'm wondering why you chose to respond to me rather than the person who chimed in with solid experience and an explanation for you.
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.
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.
> to get the big money from the state or the fed, they have to let it fail
Same thing with schools. The state won't pay for updates or maintenance, but they will for an entirely new building. School districts deliberately set up their budgets to maximize the state contribution, which means foregoing obvious updates and maintenance until the buildings become run down enough to capture those sweet sweet state dollars. Even in very affluent towns. That's how two out of six elementary schools in my town got replaced with buildings worthy of a FAANG campus. It's why people applaud the school board's decision to teach high-school classes in converted trailers through my daughter's entire time there, and now the state's going to pay a good chunk of the cost for a nine-figure replacement (that she might never even see). It's really pretty sick.
Same thing with schools. The state won't pay for updates or maintenance, but they will for an entirely new building. School districts deliberately set up their budgets to maximize the state contribution, which means foregoing obvious updates and maintenance until the buildings become run down enough to capture those sweet sweet state dollars. Even in very affluent towns. That's how two out of six elementary schools in my town got replaced with buildings worthy of a FAANG campus. It's why people applaud the school board's decision to teach high-school classes in converted trailers through my daughter's entire time there, and now the state's going to pay a good chunk of the cost for a nine-figure replacement (that she might never even see). It's really pretty sick.
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.
One thing I think American governments need to do better, if they're going to be in charge of indestructible projects, is creating an informed electorate. Much of what is in this answer is new information to me, and I'm pretty sure I'm not unusual in that way. That still doesn't fix the problem that politicians don't understand these tradeoffs, but if they could be brought to that understanding and encouraged to communicate it clearly, it would at least direct public pressure the right direction to some extent.
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
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
> There would be plenty of well paid union and trades jobs
There are already. There's more work than people right now. All that work you describe is so expensive we can only do a small portion of it.
What's really needed is more trade school so we can get more people in those positions (and yes, this increase in supply will lower wages).
It actually seems there's more work than money in every single field. We need to figure out how to make a world that doesn't take so much work to keep running. Demographics being what they are, we aren't going to be able to have complete funding for everything in the future.
It's either that, or have a world with well funded profitable amazing things, next to crumbling basic things.
There are already. There's more work than people right now. All that work you describe is so expensive we can only do a small portion of it.
What's really needed is more trade school so we can get more people in those positions (and yes, this increase in supply will lower wages).
It actually seems there's more work than money in every single field. We need to figure out how to make a world that doesn't take so much work to keep running. Demographics being what they are, we aren't going to be able to have complete funding for everything in the future.
It's either that, or have a world with well funded profitable amazing things, next to crumbling basic things.
> There are already. There's more work than people right now. All that work you describe is so expensive we can only do a small portion of it.
I'm well aware. I'm a lead engineer on a critical infrastructure project in the hundreds of millions range, that probably costs double what it actually should thanks to any number of issues with the process.
> What's really needed is more trade school so we can get more people in those positions (and yes, this increase in supply will lower wages).
Agreed 100%. There is a crisis in the loss of institutional knowledge, bringing new blood in, training and mentoring them up. Workers and engineers are direly needed at all levels.
> It actually seems there's more work than money in every single field. We need to figure out how to make a world that doesn't take so much work to keep running. Demographics being what they are, we aren't going to be able to have complete funding for everything in the future.
> It's either that, or have a world with well funded profitable amazing things, next to crumbling basic things.
Either less work to keep running, or less money to do the work required.
I'm well aware. I'm a lead engineer on a critical infrastructure project in the hundreds of millions range, that probably costs double what it actually should thanks to any number of issues with the process.
> What's really needed is more trade school so we can get more people in those positions (and yes, this increase in supply will lower wages).
Agreed 100%. There is a crisis in the loss of institutional knowledge, bringing new blood in, training and mentoring them up. Workers and engineers are direly needed at all levels.
> It actually seems there's more work than money in every single field. We need to figure out how to make a world that doesn't take so much work to keep running. Demographics being what they are, we aren't going to be able to have complete funding for everything in the future.
> It's either that, or have a world with well funded profitable amazing things, next to crumbling basic things.
Either less work to keep running, or less money to do the work required.
The problem is that the funds wouldn't go to tradespeople doing the hard work, most of it would go into the pockets of CEOs and shareholders.
(And any attempt to build anything these days, at least in the UK, will face a horde of NIMBYs and environmental activists trying to stop it, adding more to the cost and timescale if the project ever happens. Even 'green' projects like wind and solar farms face heavy opposition)
(And any attempt to build anything these days, at least in the UK, will face a horde of NIMBYs and environmental activists trying to stop it, adding more to the cost and timescale if the project ever happens. Even 'green' projects like wind and solar farms face heavy opposition)
Do you have any evidence for this? I ask because I’ve heard that public projects are overburdened with unnecessary unionized staff.
There's no need for hearsay on this. This is a true statement.
During the construction of New York's East Side Access subway project, union rules required 18 workers to run and supervise one of the tunneling machines. The manufacturers of the machine say no more than six are required to do this, which is how many are used in hardly-slave-labor countries like Norway.
Underground construction projects usually require three to four times as many staff in NYC as they do in Asia or Europe.
During the construction of New York's East Side Access subway project, union rules required 18 workers to run and supervise one of the tunneling machines. The manufacturers of the machine say no more than six are required to do this, which is how many are used in hardly-slave-labor countries like Norway.
Underground construction projects usually require three to four times as many staff in NYC as they do in Asia or Europe.
Are those government employees?
No; they're unionized construction workers, tunnelers, carpenters etc.
When I look at other industries I would expect that if the unionized staff causes overhead and more cost then shareholders and management take a multiple of that for themselves.
Typically what happens is that the government contract effectively requires the use of union labor, which then fixes a substantial element of the cost for all bidders due to union work rules and salaries. Insofar as price is a competitive element of the bidding, you're then talking about the other costs.
Wasn't a lot of this supposed to happen in the 2008 financial crisis relief funding? I remember a lot of talk about "shovel-ready jobs." Turns out they didn't really exist (there were plenty of infrastructure problems, just very few shovel-ready plans to deal with them).
Also, when you throw huge balls of government money at these problems once every 10 or 20 years, it's a lot less efficient that just funding needed maintenance every year. Those huge federal spending bills tend to get frittered away on all kinds of middlemen and pork projects, and when the dust clears the original problems have not gotten any better.
Also, when you throw huge balls of government money at these problems once every 10 or 20 years, it's a lot less efficient that just funding needed maintenance every year. Those huge federal spending bills tend to get frittered away on all kinds of middlemen and pork projects, and when the dust clears the original problems have not gotten any better.
Last year a man died after falling through disused stairs up to a highway bridge in Boston. To be fair they were fenced off and were obviously unusable, but still …
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/newly-released-video-sh...
[deleted]
Infrastructure in the midwest is aging and failing and unfortunately the region lacks the tax base to do much in the way of overhauling it. Arguably the more costly issue than aging bridges are the aging storm drain systems, sewers, and water mains. Thankfully most electric is above ground and service can be restored usually soon after storms disrupt connections (running a wire off a spool is a lot easier and cheaper of course than tearing up an arterial road to access the water main). As storms grow stronger and dump more water at once with climate change, these systems are further strained. When the wastewater system backs up in a storm waste is usually diverted to watersheds, many of which are already eutrophic. These are just the public issues too, private property is even more poorly maintained. As the housing stock ages groundwater may intrude into your basement foundation, your mains themselves may be some ancient hardware in need of a retrofit before they burst that might cost a huge sum relative to the value of the home. Who knows the state of the roof or how much mold lurks behind the drywall.
Eventually the federal government is going to have to write some grants, both to state dots, but also county dots who are in charge of a lot of infrastructure, municipalities, and also property owners facing the prospects of condemnation due to natural causes. I can't imagine that will be an easy or a clean process when it eventually becomes necessary in the next few decades.
Eventually the federal government is going to have to write some grants, both to state dots, but also county dots who are in charge of a lot of infrastructure, municipalities, and also property owners facing the prospects of condemnation due to natural causes. I can't imagine that will be an easy or a clean process when it eventually becomes necessary in the next few decades.
> the region lacks the tax base to do much in the way of overhauling it
We have plenty of tax base (speaking of Michigan specifically, we've got approximately double the total population and parcels of property in Michigan right now, than we had back in ~1950, when we built half of this stuff). We just keep wasting the public funds elsewhere. (i.e, 'Economic Development Groups' / 'Public Private Partnerships' / Tourism + State Advertising, additional spending on Police, etc.)
We have plenty of tax base (speaking of Michigan specifically, we've got approximately double the total population and parcels of property in Michigan right now, than we had back in ~1950, when we built half of this stuff). We just keep wasting the public funds elsewhere. (i.e, 'Economic Development Groups' / 'Public Private Partnerships' / Tourism + State Advertising, additional spending on Police, etc.)
I expect in michigan like anywhere else in the rust belt that there are plenty of municipalities that are hurting for funding. You can't lose the population like you've lost within the actual city limits of detroit or flint (never mind the metro area population might be unchanged due to people flocking to suburban municipalities), and continue to sufficiently maintain infrastructure fit to handle twice the population. Another issue with some suburbs is an aging population. A window generates a lot less tax revenue for the city than two working people in that home, and thats increasingly a larger portion of the population. Schools have closed because there aren't as many families in the area as there were in decades past. Even NYC struggles maintaining infrastructure due to how costly it can be, and that city is far better positioned financially than anything in the midwest, a lot better than Chicago certainly where I see buckets catching drips from the roof of OHare even on a sunny day.
> I expect in michigan like anywhere else in the rust belt that there are plenty of municipalities that are hurting for funding.
Only because we stole their funding, not because they are under-funded.
> You can't lose the population like you've lost within the actual city limits of detroit or flint (never mind the metro area population might be unchanged due to people flocking to suburban municipalities), and continue to sufficiently maintain infrastructure fit to handle twice the population
You absolutely can.
Infrastructure spending in Michigan is less than ~10% of tax revenue in all townships and all counties across the state. You could double all road spending, and it would barely even be noticed. (Using real numbers, in Kent County Michigan, for example, the entire county road commission yearly budget spend is just ~$9.69 per person per month. It's literally cheaper than the cheapest Netflix plan to maintain all of that infrastructure).
Yes, county roads aren't every road (there's city and state and federal stuff mixed in there) -- but those numbers are just tiny portions of the budget their respective budgets too. And yes, there are hyper-rural counties that have no cities and therefore have to spend more, to service those roads across such a small population. But even those counties only average $20 to $35 a month. (Using Cheboygan County Michigan as an example, comes in around $32/month per person).
It's really not a funding issue. There's zero problems with the tax base, or population, or aging. It's truly-and-only a priority issue. We keep taking money away from roads and other infrastructure, we spend it elsewhere (usually on junk) and then complain that "municipalities are hurting for funding" as if it's some great mystery.
Only because we stole their funding, not because they are under-funded.
> You can't lose the population like you've lost within the actual city limits of detroit or flint (never mind the metro area population might be unchanged due to people flocking to suburban municipalities), and continue to sufficiently maintain infrastructure fit to handle twice the population
You absolutely can.
Infrastructure spending in Michigan is less than ~10% of tax revenue in all townships and all counties across the state. You could double all road spending, and it would barely even be noticed. (Using real numbers, in Kent County Michigan, for example, the entire county road commission yearly budget spend is just ~$9.69 per person per month. It's literally cheaper than the cheapest Netflix plan to maintain all of that infrastructure).
Yes, county roads aren't every road (there's city and state and federal stuff mixed in there) -- but those numbers are just tiny portions of the budget their respective budgets too. And yes, there are hyper-rural counties that have no cities and therefore have to spend more, to service those roads across such a small population. But even those counties only average $20 to $35 a month. (Using Cheboygan County Michigan as an example, comes in around $32/month per person).
It's really not a funding issue. There's zero problems with the tax base, or population, or aging. It's truly-and-only a priority issue. We keep taking money away from roads and other infrastructure, we spend it elsewhere (usually on junk) and then complain that "municipalities are hurting for funding" as if it's some great mystery.
I'm in the midwest and they are spending money widening roads and freeways while letting everything go into disrepair.
Honestly, I think the story about Hydes is more interesting than the bridge itself.
It'd be nice if politicans funded butter (infra) and not guns (ridiculous military spending and foreign aid)
[deleted]
The US had designed a system where large numbers of municipalities need more revenue then they actually produce. This has led to large swathes of the country having crumbling infrastructure as tax revenues are not adequate to maintenance. The solution is to maintain things like highways federally and move to a system of living that generates more funds. This likely means higher property tax rates in suburbs which is wildly unpopular and part of the reason all the infrastructure is crumbling. I know the specific piece of infrastructure isn’t in a suburb but failing cities have similar revenue problems.
[deleted]
MDOT has been in shambles since I was born in Michigan in the 70s. Infrastructure is a very state-to-state thing as well. FDOT (Florida) appears at least, to be more competent and aware.
The only thing saving FDOT is that they don't have snow and ice (especially ice below the surface) to deal with. They can build and maintain roads in an entirely different way because of that.
Save for their collapsing pedestrian bridges.
That collapsing bridge was supposed to be 174 feet long and was going to cost around $13 million. $75k per linear foot. And it was insanely ugly. The replacement bridge has a beautiful design but is expected to cost $15 million - $87k per linear foot!
At the same time as the Miami pedestrian bridge collapse, CDOT (Chicago...) was building this gorgeous 620 foot long pedestrian bridge [1] with a final cost of $26 million. $42k per linear foot. And they didn't interrupt 6 active rail lines or a 6-lane "boulevard" during construction.
So clearly, we can build nice things at reasonable prices. But how do we make it standard, rather than something where we get lucky every once in a while? I have no idea...
[1] https://www.exp.com/project/35th-street-pedestrian-bridge/
At the same time as the Miami pedestrian bridge collapse, CDOT (Chicago...) was building this gorgeous 620 foot long pedestrian bridge [1] with a final cost of $26 million. $42k per linear foot. And they didn't interrupt 6 active rail lines or a 6-lane "boulevard" during construction.
So clearly, we can build nice things at reasonable prices. But how do we make it standard, rather than something where we get lucky every once in a while? I have no idea...
[1] https://www.exp.com/project/35th-street-pedestrian-bridge/
isn't the MI govt under a huge deficit?
>> isn't the MI govt under a huge deficit?
Not since education got funded by the lottery. They promised if we got a lottery the money would all go to education. Never mind that for every dollar that went to education from the lottery, there was a dollar reduction coming from the general fund which got diverted.... apparently not to infrastructure.
Not since education got funded by the lottery. They promised if we got a lottery the money would all go to education. Never mind that for every dollar that went to education from the lottery, there was a dollar reduction coming from the general fund which got diverted.... apparently not to infrastructure.
MI hasn't had any real budget issues for a decade. There was a brief period early in the pandemic when things were looking grim, but the feds flooded sates with money.
Someone should copy the way that Japanese do lightening-fast road maintenance.
These roads in Japan are like pristine and awesomely smooth; USA, not so much.
These roads in Japan are like pristine and awesomely smooth; USA, not so much.
The American Dream: getting wronged by a city and suing them!
Dude was standing on a bridge which crumbled under him like a cartoon.
You really, truly, honestly think he should have to pay his own medical bills for this?
You really, truly, honestly think he should have to pay his own medical bills for this?
Did I say that? I'm just saying he's lucky!
I'm going to guess if you were to ask him that he would prefer to have the bridge stay intact while he was walking on it.
The fact that we have to sue the government for it to cover the cost of medical treatment after falling because of literally crumbling infrastructure is what is ridiculous. They should be falling head over feet to offer to pay this person.
Please don't post nationalistic flamebait. It leads to nationalistic flamewars, which are one of the things we want to avoid here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Unless it's about Russia, then flame away!
Not so - we care about this rule regardless of country - it would be hypocritical
otherwise. Unfortunately, massive global trends overwhelm moderation and there's a limit to what we can do under one of those tidal waves. For one thing, it's not possible to read all the comments.
I don't think that's an exception either. The state of infrastructure in this country is indeed terrible and people have been sounding the alarm since forever, and it just never gets fixed. But there is always money for new tanks that get sent straight to the boneyard, or fighting whatever extremely-important war we're into this year.