 |
Re: Yes, some tunnels do cost more, and some cost less, and then there's this one.
Author: BOB2
Date: 02-14-2019 - 04:32
No two tunnels are the same....nope. They are not just holes in the ground, nope...
Nope, some people spend much more on tunnels, in (and not in) different of conditions. Sometimes just because of how they were planned. Which can be used, and in some of my worst examples, often has been used, to create deliberately inflated project cost estimates, compared with comparable work. Although, not usually that often, before the work is even at 1% of design.
That will, of course, work out just fine for a few folks who might just benefit from bloated and overpriced infrastructure projects, though what some of us skeptical economist's like to call the "circular flow of money"... that is from the taxpayer pockets, to politicians who dole out the work, which goes to the contractors, who then donates some of it back to politician's campaign coffers, completing the magic of the "circle"....
Them, with ELA, we had the case of where the estimates, both for bored tunnel, and cut and cover were over, when we did an actual "design-build" procurement, which showed that the bored tunnel could be done, much cheaper than by using "cut and cover", and below the agency tunneling estimates.
Haven't you not learned anything yet, from the sordid and incompetent history of 25 years of the "circular flow of money" in the CAHSRA fiasco? What is amazing to me, is that Gavin did have the balls to say no, with so many future campaign contributions for so many politicians at stake.
I see some of this cost inflation by "design" everyday, with some of the really expensive grade separation projects we've been building. I saw this with the LACMTA on the I-710 Tunnel, with competent staff removed from the project, and replaced by more "compliant" staff under political pressure from Nimby politicians to kill the project. I know this from comparing these later costs estimates, to the private sector work on cost estimates for a public/private partnership privately toll financed 710 tunnel "franchise" to build it, I was privileged to see back in 2007.
SANDAG in my experience has had a reasonably good track record in containing "cost creep" compared to many agencies I've seen, and has had a reasonably good planning process. Of course SANDAG is under new management and things change.
Your "newest" estimate of $4 billion, which you have already inflated in just one post by $500,000,000 from the previous $3.5 billion "high" estimate in the story, in "on-line" "cost creep" makes me wonder if you just might work as a lobbyist for a likely contractor?
It's our money, we all get a vote, and it's been my experience that we've always been able to spend a lot more on some of these things, if we really work hard at it. Maybe that is because, as we've come to see, all too often, we continue to have some of the best "gubmint" that money can buy, when it comes to some of these infrastructure projects?
Nope, some people spend much more on tunnels, in (and not in) different of conditions. Sometimes just because of how they were planned. Which can be used, and in some of my worst examples, often has been used, to create deliberately inflated project cost estimates, compared with comparable work. Although, not usually that often, before the work is even at 1% of design.
That will, of course, work out just fine for a few folks who might just benefit from bloated and overpriced infrastructure projects, though what some of us skeptical economist's like to call the "circular flow of money"... that is from the taxpayer pockets, to politicians who dole out the work, which goes to the contractors, who then donates some of it back to politician's campaign coffers, completing the magic of the "circle"....
Them, with ELA, we had the case of where the estimates, both for bored tunnel, and cut and cover were over, when we did an actual "design-build" procurement, which showed that the bored tunnel could be done, much cheaper than by using "cut and cover", and below the agency tunneling estimates.
Haven't you not learned anything yet, from the sordid and incompetent history of 25 years of the "circular flow of money" in the CAHSRA fiasco? What is amazing to me, is that Gavin did have the balls to say no, with so many future campaign contributions for so many politicians at stake.
I see some of this cost inflation by "design" everyday, with some of the really expensive grade separation projects we've been building. I saw this with the LACMTA on the I-710 Tunnel, with competent staff removed from the project, and replaced by more "compliant" staff under political pressure from Nimby politicians to kill the project. I know this from comparing these later costs estimates, to the private sector work on cost estimates for a public/private partnership privately toll financed 710 tunnel "franchise" to build it, I was privileged to see back in 2007.
SANDAG in my experience has had a reasonably good track record in containing "cost creep" compared to many agencies I've seen, and has had a reasonably good planning process. Of course SANDAG is under new management and things change.
Your "newest" estimate of $4 billion, which you have already inflated in just one post by $500,000,000 from the previous $3.5 billion "high" estimate in the story, in "on-line" "cost creep" makes me wonder if you just might work as a lobbyist for a likely contractor?
It's our money, we all get a vote, and it's been my experience that we've always been able to spend a lot more on some of these things, if we really work hard at it. Maybe that is because, as we've come to see, all too often, we continue to have some of the best "gubmint" that money can buy, when it comes to some of these infrastructure projects?
