why are we the worlds highest cost producers?

[OVERKILL]

This also explains why the 2.2 mile long Bay Bridge that they claimed couldn't be made in the USA and was out-sourced to China cost vastly more (almost 8x) than the 8-mile long bridge to PEI that has to deal with the Atlantic and ice flows.

 

[rjundi]

Originally Posted By: jimbrewer
Why are we the world's highest cost producers for tunnels? We can't seem to dig a tunnel to save oour lives? http://www.king5.com/news/local/Senator-...-239512981.html

We spent $14 billion for a 3.5 mile project in the Big Dig in Boston. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig

Meanwhile, the Swiss can build a 35 mile tunnel through the alps for less. The Swiss. not exactly cheap-jack labor. http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2026369,00.html


Big Dig is under a city and more or less full of water. The above infrastructure could not be effected during the construction. Alps you can blast away to your hearts content with likely no impact to anything!

I spent a few months in those tunnels out of college as an intern.

Also there is an economy of scale building 10 times as long in the middle of mountain.

 

[BISCUT]

Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: BISCUT
Graft, red tape, overzealous union issues, politicians adding tremendous amount of pork into every nook and cranny, off the hook environmentalist (and this is from a enviro guy; I'm just reasonable).

You think "The Big Dig" was horrendous (and it was) just wait until the TapanZEEEE bridge is really rolling here in NY. Can't wait to see the overuns! Going to be something special. They have already begun the pre-staging of equip and supplies.


Oh? I guess the last time I drove over it I thought it was a bit bumpy... Lemme guess, the toll isn't going to go down in price? Getting to be pricey to drive on the highways.


It's already $4.75 a pop!

 

[BISCUT]

I can only speak to NY as this is where I file the majority of my funding requests. Each vendor I want or have to use or get to answer a bid; there is preference given to women and/or minority owned. I could give a [censored], I just want the best product for the best price. Forced to choose what sometimes isn't the best is the way gov't works. Soooo don't let the Cuomo commercials fool you; we sure AREN'T business friendly.

So many facets of gov't red tape, union overruns and inspectors on the take....sure does add to the final cost. Large construction is a rough business.

 

[jimbrewer]

We can sometimes do other big projects very cost-effectively. Look at the Tillman Bridge, That thing was built for a lousy $114 million. All 100 percent unionized labor, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_O'Callaghan%E2%80%93Pat_Tillman_Memorial_Bridge

We never, ever, seem to dig a tunnel at a half-decent price. Why?

However expensive our unions are, they couldn't possibly be as expensive as the Swiss union guys.

The Spanish built a 5km tunnel into downtown Barcelona for about 250 mill. http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/barcelona-tunnel-complete.html

No doubt they must have favorable digging conditions to do that. I have to believe they are not counting a few things, but even if they are off by 100 percent, that's an astoundingly cheap price, for a project that's all accomplished with high-dollar european labor. Why are we so far out of line?

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: strat81
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Unions are people who have banded together in common cause to negotiate collectively.


In many instances, workers have no choice but to join the union. They aren't "people who have banded together". They are people who have been forced into something that removes autonomy and independence.


Every State should be a right to work State.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: strat81
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Unions are people who have banded together in common cause to negotiate collectively.


In many instances, workers have no choice but to join the union. They aren't "people who have banded together". They are people who have been forced into something that removes autonomy and independence.


Every State should be a right to work State.


Absolutely.

The union my Wife was once involved in was mandatory as far as dues whether you liked it or not. Then they go all out politically and if it's not in a direction you like you can't even withold your money.

 

[demarpaint]

Another vote for every state should be a right to work state.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: strat81
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Unions are people who have banded together in common cause to negotiate collectively.


In many instances, workers have no choice but to join the union. They aren't "people who have banded together". They are people who have been forced into something that removes autonomy and independence.


My wife is in that situation - forced to pay dues for minimal actual representation. We are not a fan, as the scenario as it stands isnt particularly beneficial.

Until I got to thinking about it a bit more... Union or not, what's the difference in pay? A few dollars maybe? There is SO muh info out there, do I reasonably think that pay parity would be different with or without the union? If she is working within the right range of market rate for her position and training, for a fully burdened and benefited laborer (different than per diem), then what is the difference?

Got to be joking. Jobs are worth what they are worth in any area, and even in sparse areas, there generally is enough to set a valid basis for the value of the job.

So if people want to join unions, let them (she would drop out but that's a different story from those who desire to be in them). They sure arent making themselves "rich" (as in 1%, milionaires or any other form of the scenario). They may get better benefits or retirement off of it, but how anyone can blame anyone for chasing that, especially if the bulk of the population joins together and speaks as one to get it.

Ive never been one for unions, but came to realize that despite the rhetoric, the workers arent making out in a huge way. Sure, some anti-union types would like to dump any worker but themself into a minimum wage pool, and be done. But that isnt necessarily the right approach either. The union bosses and infrastructure sure is corrupt, overpaid, etc. off these peoples' funds, and the dues are way too high. Id sure be hapy to see that all go away. But the fundamental approach of a group of people vying for their resources in light of their labor is just logical.

Ive been robbed enough by the owners trying to justify excessive hourly rates that the laborers DO NOT get, to feel sorry for them. Many are s much thieves as the union bosses, whom I tend to segregate from the workers who are trying to make ends meet.

 

[strat81]

Originally Posted By: BISCUT
Originally Posted By: supton
Oh? I guess the last time I drove over it I thought it was a bit bumpy... Lemme guess, the toll isn't going to go down in price? Getting to be pricey to drive on the highways.


It's already $4.75 a pop!


Verrazano cash toll is $15 round trip. Thievery.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: strat81
Originally Posted By: BISCUT
Originally Posted By: supton
Oh? I guess the last time I drove over it I thought it was a bit bumpy... Lemme guess, the toll isn't going to go down in price? Getting to be pricey to drive on the highways.


It's already $4.75 a pop!


Verrazano cash toll is $15 round trip. Thievery.


On the other hand, folks from Nebraska or elsewhere might ask why their federal gas taxes should go to a bridge they will never go over.

 

[strat81]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: strat81
Verrazano cash toll is $15 round trip. Thievery.


On the other hand, folks from Nebraska or elsewhere might ask why their federal gas taxes should go to a bridge they will never go over.

I don't profess to know much about federal highway tax receipts and disbursements. However, creating and maintaining a viable transportation network is one of the fundamental roles of government. It is one of the few roles of the federal government specifically enumerated in the US Constitution.

If I had to guess, I-80 through Nebraska would not exist (at least not in its current form) if it depended solely on state funds. Folks from NY would get testy if their Chinese goods unloaded at the port of Long Beach couldn't make it to their doorsteps quickly because of poor interstate highways in the Cornhusker State.

As for the Verrazano toll, rather than fleece Staten Island-Brooklyn commuters, perhaps tolls should be placed on the many bridges in NYC that do not have any tolls at all. Or, kill all tolls and raise gas taxes. If gas taxes go up, then everyone pays and, theoretically that's more equitable since everyone supposedly benefits from the bridge being there, regardless of whether or not they traverse it.

Or perhaps we can just sell the five boroughs back to the Dutch.

(Full disclosure - I spent 24 years living in NYC. The only thing I really miss is the pizza. Good riddance.)

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: strat81
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: strat81
Verrazano cash toll is $15 round trip. Thievery.


On the other hand, folks from Nebraska or elsewhere might ask why their federal gas taxes should go to a bridge they will never go over.

I don't profess to know much about federal highway tax receipts and disbursements. However, creating and maintaining a viable transportation network is one of the fundamental roles of government. It is one of the few roles of the federal government specifically enumerated in the US Constitution.

If I had to guess, I-80 through Nebraska would not exist (at least not in its current form) if it depended solely on state funds. Folks from NY would get testy if their Chinese goods unloaded at the port of Long Beach couldn't make it to their doorsteps quickly because of poor interstate highways in the Cornhusker State.

As for the Verrazano toll, rather than fleece Staten Island-Brooklyn commuters, perhaps tolls should be placed on the many bridges in NYC that do not have any tolls at all. Or, kill all tolls and raise gas taxes. If gas taxes go up, then everyone pays and, theoretically that's more equitable since everyone supposedly benefits from the bridge being there, regardless of whether or not they traverse it.

Or perhaps we can just sell the five boroughs back to the Dutch.

(Full disclosure - I spent 24 years living in NYC. The only thing I really miss is the pizza. Good riddance.)


I hear ya. My main point was that there are two sides to the argument, that's all. Sometimes something so specific is more of a convenience and local benefit than anything else. Gross example with lots of holes to be shot into it: How many ways are there onto Staten Island or Long Island? Multiple bridges? All associated with the interstate/US highway system (OK maybe Bayone 440 bridge isnt). Where is the line drawn between traffic alleviation for the locals versus having national assets for interstate travel?

Another example kind of similar... I was in SF earlier this week. The golden gate bridge is e-toll only. If I tried to cross from Marin county into SF, Id get a fine. So I went another bridge. There are lots from the East Bay to SF. If Im a transient, do I care to keep up ALL the bridges that Ill never use, via the gas tax that I pay primarily in NJ to the feds? Maybe all I should have to worry about is one main I-80 bridge (the new Oakland bridge via Treasure Island for example), and ensure that any other local infrastructure for convenience of the area is paid only by locals. I-80 would then be a national asset, the other stuff perhaps not as much.

Again, just thinking out loud in the devil's advocate position for infrastructure and roads... Not trying to argue.