SkyscraperPage Forum - Why does it cost so much to build things in America?

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)

- Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)

- - Why does it cost so much to build things in America? (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=247464)

Why does it cost so much to build things in America?

Why does it cost so much to build things in America?

Quote:

This is why the US can’t have nice things.
By Jerusalem Demsas@JerusalemDemsas Jun 28, 2021, 7:00am EDT

As Congress argues over the size of the infrastructure bill and how to pay for it, very little attention is being devoted to one of the most perplexing problems: Why does it cost so much more to build transportation networks in the US than in the rest of the world?

In an interview in early June, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg acknowledged the problem, but he offered no solutions except the need to study it further.

Biden’s original infrastructure proposal included $621 billion for roads, rail, and bridges. His plan is billed not only as an infrastructure plan but one that would help respond to the climate crisis. A big part of that is making it easier for more Americans to travel by mass transit. The Biden plan noted that “America lags its peers — including Canada, the U.K., and Australia — in the on-time and on-budget delivery of infrastructure,” but that understates the problem.

Not only are these projects inordinately expensive, states and localities are not even attempting to build particularly ambitious projects. The US is the sixth-most expensive country in the world to build rapid-rail transit infrastructure like the New York City Subway, the Washington Metro, or the Chicago “L.” And that’s with the nation often avoiding tunneling projects, which are often the most complicated and expensive parts of any new metro line. According to the Transit Costs Project, the five countries with higher costs than the US “are building projects that are more than 80 percent tunneled ... [whereas in the US] only 37 percent of the total track length is tunneled.”

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/KPUS..._km_tunnel.jpg

There’s no one simple reason for this. Experts are clamoring for the government to collect more data, but the complexity of the problem lends itself to complex solutions. Still, the stakes are high. NYU researchers noted the massive economic stakes, pointing to studies that show that building dense urban transit networks could increase aggregate economic growth by roughly 10 percent.

The goal is bigger than a single light rail line or a trolley; it’s about creating transit networks that allow people to navigate from home to work to play easily enough to give up their cars, thereby reducing pollution and congestion. It’s not enough that the nation’s richest states can afford to build one or two transit projects every couple of decades. Bringing down costs is paramount to achieve the climate and economic benefits that accompany transit projects.
[...]

One big factor ive always believed is the American practice of overreliance on consultants to tell agencies things they should either already know or should have the wherewithal to discover themselves.

^ Plus our pathetically over-lawyered litigious society which costs huge insurance premiums for each and every thing

Why does it cost so much to build things in America?

Some people on this website will tell you that "America" refers to Bolivia, Chile, Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, Brazil, Columbia, Argentina, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Belize, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Uruguay, Guyana and some other places.

True, but common sense tells you otherwise.

One of my relatives is a "consultant". He told me last weekend that he bills $3,200 per day.

Also, a very small number of engineering firms, but especially Parsons-Brinkerhoff, dominate the consulting and design of rapid transit / light rail / streetcar projects.

Also, we build tons of freight locomotives and cars in the United States, but close to zero rapid transit / light rail / streetcars.

all the us needs to do is invent the strongest roads and the best buses. or wait for china to do it and pay a lot more. thats hard to do, its easier to wait till something better comes along. building lots of rail in falling apart cities isnt smart and with raising sea levels. to have trains work you need buses and buses wont last long on bad roads. no money being made means you cant build buildings?

I've heard that Germany has a poor record with completing infrastructure projects, including some major airport that is, to my knowledge, still not complete after years of delays.

Does this mean that the US is even worse?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 9328658)

Also, we build tons of freight locomotives and cars in the United States, but close to zero rapid transit / light rail / streetcars.

The ceding of our domestic passenger rolling stock expertise and market to European and Asian companies is one of the saddest and most shameful consequences of American 20th century transportation policy. Had rail use and investment continued on the same trajectory it did in Europe or Asia, we may very well still have a plethora of institutional knowledge in companies like Pullman, Budd, ACF, StL Car, Brill, etc.

It's depressing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 9329947)

Devil's Advocate here: If Keolis does a better job of managing a rail system, why not go with them?

We can sell France our superior wine. :)

That's apples and oranges. Im talking about the legacy of past American railcar builders.

Oh, gotcha. Yeah, definitely a bummer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 9328658)

Yes, the percentage of soft costs on these projects is insane. Boston spent almost $1B on soft costs for the Green Line extension before ever putting a shovel in the ground. That’s on a $2.4B project!

Gotta start bringing some of this expertise in-house, or in the larger agencies, trusting/supporting the internal staff that’s already there and are knowledgeable.

I can understand why some countries with cheaper labor (China) are towards the bottom, but why highly developed ones like Finland, Switzerland, Japan, Sweden, etc are there?

If I were in charge (or if I was Pete Buttigieg) I would push for a restructuring of the USDOT in which MUCH more "brainstorming" and early planning would be actually handled in DC for transit and rail projects nationwide, understanding that cash strapped agencies, even if they may apply for funding and receive, do not even have the financial ability to "think big" and get anything other than a line on a map off the page if you will. In my mind, a division within the DOT could basically be the brain center of every major transit initiiate around the country and could accelerate the planning of major capital investments and expansion projects and use in-house expertise to lesson the burden of local or state agencies to get major projects' design off the starting line. Just think how many projects this would represent, where planning help (think 25% design) from the federal DOT greatly increases the likelihood that transformative projects actually come to fruition and not just sit on a dusty shelf as a rough concept. Think SEPTA Roosevelt subway, multiple NY MTA lines, LA Metro, BART (yes, BART), et cetera et cetera.

^I disagree, but I also do agree that what you are proposing would be far more efficient than what we have today.

Right now, we seem to have some sort of hybrid system between federal and local control that I feel serves no one.

bldgs: code compliance for design, pnfs, studies, permitting, LEED, hazmat mitigation, materials cartel/s, labor, scheduling, delivery, insurance, financing costs, detours, code enforcement, peace officers/traffic, 24hr site security.

Transit: Not really understanding how we got so out of whack. Maybe we should have hired BNSF a couple of decades ago and let them manage/plan/build future infrastructure for the MBTA. Of course that would never happen in a place like Boston.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 9330197)

totally on board with this, unless anyone has a better idea? a usdot office to guide and support major transit projects and while we are at it another for support for road diets and adding pedestrian/bike lanes. why do cars get all the help and not other forms of transit? :shrug:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnyc (Post 9330611)

Cars , trucks, and highways do not get "all" the help. Just look at the latest USDOT budgets breakdowns. This is a recent Trump budget proposal pre-pandemic.
https://www.transportation.gov/sites...otbh2019-b.pdf
Total USDOT budget = $76.5 billion
The Department’s budget is composed of approximately
20 percent discretionary general fund dollars and 80 percent
mandatory trust fund dollars.
Mandatory programs = $60.9 billion
Discretionary programs = $15.6 billion

Federal Highway Administration $45.790 billion
Federal Aviation Administration $16.122 billion
Federal Transit Administration $11.118 billion
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration $914.7 million
Federal Railroad Administration $854.0 million
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration $665.8 million
Maritime Administration $396.4 million
Office of the Secretary $390.1 million
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration $254.3 million

And repeating what I wrote before, this was a Trump budget that arrived on Capital Hill Dead On Arrival.
Obviously railroads seem to get shorted, but if you reflect on the fact that Uncle Sam collects no "Trust Fund" taxes from Railroads at all, that every penny spent on Railroads comes from discretionary allocations, not too surprising. If you wish to fund Railroads more, how about adding Railroad taxes to the Trust Fund bank accounts? Are you willing to pay a Trust Fund tax over and beyond your fares to ride on local and intercity passenger trains?