Compare cost of Federal v Local infrastructure costs

[zzzz]

Want to know why it costs so much to build stuff with Federal dollars? Here is an interesting article about why it costs 2 to 3 times to build something under Federal guidelines and rules than it does under State guidelines and rules.

Gov. Mitch Daniels teamed up with his buddy, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, to start a conversation about federal stimulus spending. Their idea was for the government to suspend federal rules and regulations that slow down infrastructure projects at taxpayer expense.
Based on his experience with the Major Moves highway construction program in Indiana, Daniels was certain the idea would save billions. Although most highway projects use a combination of federal and state funds, and therefore must follow federal rules, some Major Moves projects had been built exclusively with state dollars and were exempt from federal mandates. As Daniels recalls in his book “Keeping the Republic,” those came in at two-thirds the cost.

Backing up Daniels’ claims is a fascinating case study of two construction projects on County Road 17 in Elkhart County, one subject to federal mandates and the other not.The study was conducted in 2009 by Dulcy Abraham and Varun Kishore of Purdue University’s School of Civil Engineering and sponsored by state and federal transportation departments.
The road underwent a major upgrade beginning in 2002. One stretch of the improvement, heading north toward Michigan, was completed using all local dollars. The other segment, heading south from County Road 18, was financed mostly by federal taxpayers.
Both projects used competitive bidding. Both followed the same lane and shoulder width, lane slope and pavement thickness standards. Both were done by the same contractor.
Here’s the part that will make taxpayers sick.
After adjusting for inflation and project differentials, researchers determined the cost per mile of the local project was $1 million. The cost per mile of the federal project was $2.8 million — and that’s in spite of economies of scale that came with federal purchasing power.
Although the researchers offered no political analysis and noted that their study was “not exhaustive” enough to reach broad conclusions, their work gives politicians more than enough ammunition to justify change in the way federal highway money is spent.
Some cost differences reflect congressional policies that would be politically difficult to reverse. For example, federal projects must comply with the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires union wage scales, and the National Environmental Policy Act, which protects delicate ecosystems.
But many of the regulations serve no purpose other than to complicate the process. For example, the report identified project specifications, review stages and detailed data collection requirements that had no notable impact on the final product.
There’s one more argument against the federal way of doing it: On almost every measure of quality assessed after the projects were completed, the locally financed one was superior. “The results of these tests indicate that the road section built using 100 percent locally funded project may have better pavement performance than the road section built using federal funds.”

When feds spend highway money, taxpayers get fleeced - journalreview.com: Opinion


For those who want to look at the study, it shows a lot of interesting information here is the pdf.
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2658&context=jtrp

 

[waltky]

Granny don't care what it costs - she wants a scooter lane fer her motor scooter...

Senior citizens drive infrastructure spending
1/28/13 - Mobility plays an underappreciated role in health and well-being

It’s no secret that America’s population is getting old. And aside from figuring out the future of Medicare and Social Security, policymakers have another big challenge: helping older people get out and about. That mobility actually plays an underappreciated role in health and well-being — and mayors and state officials are beginning to make it part of how they think about infrastructure spending. They are making the case that planning and building ahead for the rapidly aging population should be a big consideration as they divvy up their state budgets.

It was one of the themes raised at the U.S. Conference of Mayors winter meeting this month in Washington. And some mayors are thinking about ways of encouraging seniors to move from the suburbs back to the city. That way, they can take advantage of the infrastructure in place and build from that. “The more we can do to attract baby boomers to the heart of the city, the better off our city will be,” Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton said at the conference, which included a panel on this topic. By 2050, America’s population of people older than 65 will exceed 88 million — more than double that population in 2010, according to the Administration on Aging.

Policies that help older people “age in place” without relocating or moving into facilities like nursing homes are key to keeping an aging population connected — even after they give up their car keys — health advocates say. But they need to be mobile. An 85-year-old who can’t get transportation to the doctor to control her five chronic diseases, for instance, is at risk of ending up in an ambulance instead.

And there are social and emotional consequences, as well — which in turn affect health. “The whole deal with healthy aging is to stay connected and stay involved, and the enemy of healthy aging is social isolation,” Ruth Finkelstein, senior vice president for policy and planning at The New York Academy of Medicine, told the panel. Research suggests that the “single most important predictor” of life expectancy in the U.S. is a rich social network and social engagement, Finkelstein told POLITICO.

Read more: Senior citizens drive infrastructure spending - Kathryn Smith - POLITICO.com

 

[OKTexas]

Yep, I was involved in a project to build a school in Belize some years back, when we checked vendors for construction supplies we were quoted $ 3.00 per yard for masonry sand, we inspected the sand and it was fine for our needs. However after the government contracting office got through piling on specifications, the price went to $32.00 per yard. Same sand just different guarantees. We're from the government and we're here to help, you spend your money.

 

[Clementine]

The fact that locally funded roads are better quality than federally funded, just proves that government has created many ways to waste our money. Common sense never finds it's way into anything passed by congress.

 

[waltky]

The road out front needs fixin' `a-fore somebody runs off inna ditch...

DOT Secretary: 'The Roads You're Driving On Will Crumble...'
May 13, 2014 -- "This may be the most dire moment the American transportation system has faced in decades," Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx told reporters at the White House on Monday.

"Unless Congress acts, up to 700,000 Americans will lose their jobs over the next year," he said. Road work, bridge-building and transit maintenance projects "may be delayed or shut down completely," slowing trade and causing businesses not to hire. "And by the way, your morning commute will be longer because the roads you're driving on will crumble, and no one will show up to fix it," Foxx said. The dire scenario results partly from the insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund, a problem that's been years in the making.

The trust fund -- which depends on gasoline taxes -- is projected to run out of money by August, partly because people are driving more fuel-efficient cars, which means less tax money coming in. To solve the nation's "infrastructure deficit," Foxx said the nation needs to spend $3.6 trillion by the end of the decade. "So what we need right now is to rally around a set of ideas that increase annual investment," he said. (In Washington, "investment" means spending.)

Foxx was plugging the Obama administration's "Grow America Act," a four-year, $302-billion funding bill that would refill the Highway Trust Fund and "substantially increase annual funding" for transit projects. The administration is recommending "pro-growth business tax reform" to raise $150 billion. Asked if the new taxes would fall mainly on transportation businesses, Foxx said, "it actually could be broader than that." He talked about "taking some of the untaxed earnings that are overseas and plowing some of that into infrastructure." The bill also includes a provision that would allow state governors to apply to the federal government for the right to place tolls on interstate highways.

Foxx urged Congress to take the legislation "seriously." "America is hungry and starving for more infrastructure investment, and we have a responsibility to articulate that as an agency because America is growing, whether we're investing or not. We're going to have a hundred-million more people in this country by 2050, FOxx said -- plus 14 billion additional tons of freight moving within the U.S. "And that long commute that folks had this morning is going to get longer if we don't start doing something right now."

DOT Secretary: 'The Roads You're Driving On Will Crumble...' | CNS News