viewer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The other thing I wonder about is why we abandoned
> the old Caltrans/Public Works model, where the
> engineering was done in-house for most work?
> Contracting it out was rarely done, and if done
> was for limited pieces of work with clear
> management criteria. Yes, administration and the
> like were ESTIMATED during project planning using
> percentages of the project delivery cost, but
> contracts were usually fixed price. When and why
> did it change (yes, there's always graft and
> corruption as a simple one-line shitpost, but
> really, what changed and why?). A personal
> observation is that the projects I worked on over
> the years really started getting expensive once
> consultants become the project managers - hiring a
> consultant to manage a consultant was always
> frowned upon, until it became common around 2000.
> Not sure what changed, since by then I was out of
> the direct project delivery cycle (dealing more
> with interagency and regulatory issues).

Bingo....

Caltrans has had a better tracks record in some ways. Part of that is historic/legal/cultural in CT's engineering design and operational roles, which does have some advantages, in terms of public accountability. Part is the use of more Federal Highways Funds with some of the tighter contracting requirments from the use of Federal funds.

But I worked on the funding matters way back when to I-105 was underestimated by CT by nearly two thirds, because back then, Caltrans itself was "underbidding" (deliberately underestimating) their own internal project costs. This behavior was rewarded because the though the project was under threat of cancellation and the "real" estimate would "endanger" their next (and last) freeway, which reflected a "corrupt" don't tell us how to do it Caltrans memtality of that era. Caltrans major projects already underwary had first draw for cost overruns, by pushing other local Federally funded project further down the project list and taking their funding until the project was completed. This wrecked the match lists and local project commitments for those Federal funds at the old LACTC, and finally Richard Katz "dehorned" Caltrans, and took their open ended taxpayer piggy bank aways and gave the Commisions veto power to reign in Caltrans we're real men we build freeways, no matter what the cost "corporate culture".

I was at a quarterly "bid pot" meeting where they updated the stakeholders on avaiable funding status, and Caltrains would come in and ask for things like a $40 million dollar quarterly funding reassigment, because "they forgot to design the Vermont interchange and drainage systems".... Oop's my bad, give me more money... Oops my dog ate the specification to design a forty million dollar interchange....

FTA planning, funding and contracting requirements can impose some discipline on the planning processes (if done properly) to require a more open public process to avoid gold plating and design bloat, which is why some locally funded prjects don't use Federal funds (poor performance). Agencies like LACMTA, SANDAG/MTC, and VTA have had some notably costly and/or poorly performing projects, that would not fair well on the FTA cost effectiveness rankings, which have been locally funded projects. I have also seen transit projects where they had a high performing project but did not use Federal funds, because Federal funds brought just a little too much scrutiny and oversight.

The reforms recently imposed on the CHSRA fiasco, and the fact that they can't blow any nmore money for now on Burbank or Pacheco, and only spend any remaining funds to finish the Bakersfield to Chowchilla segment. Meanwhile, ACE/San Joaquin have about half of the money to salvage this mess (Plan B) by connecting via the ACE/SJC corridor via Altamont, Tracy, Modesto, Merced, to hook up with the "runaway money train" at Chowhchilla.

Or as I've said cynically many times in my career, one step forward, two steps back... We've been fixing things slower than they've been breaking lately, like with San Clemente. So any reforms that can keep the "runaway money train" from eating the entire public rail budget several times over, while the (1887 single tracked 25 mph.) LOSSAN line is shut down and falling into the ocean, is an improvement....