|
Post by dog on May 8, 2014 11:38:57 GMT -6
I've designed, bid out, inspected, and construction managed many roadway projects at the local, county, state, and federal level. I've been in a position to accept or reject bids and have never been offered or accepted any type of kickbacks nor have I been directed to accept or reject any bid by any politician. Oh wait, I did accept a thanksgiving turkey once that a contractor was delivering to their clients and vendors. The turkey was good but I doubt it cost 40 to 50 percent of any project they bid on. What is your roadway construction experience that brought you to that 40 to 50 percent kickback number? Since you have worked in the field, could you explain to us how some of this really works? As others have said, it seems like many of these roads and bridges are falling apart way before they should. Do we really take the lowest bid? Is it based on some low quality product to keep the cost down?Should we be using a better quality product that would last longer? When you have designed some of these projects, do you come up with what the standard should be or do you follow other guidelines? When you design a project, what is acceptable life of the completed project? How does that compare to the expected life expectancy of projects that were built, lets say, 50 years ago? What type of cost analysis was used? I know that is a lot of questions, and it would be hard to answer in just a couple of sentences, but I would appreciate it if you could give it a shot.
|
|
|
Post by northsider on May 8, 2014 11:44:53 GMT -6
"I do believe we could cut 40 to 50 percent of the costs if they were bid without kickbacks." "I never said 40 to 50 percent kickback, I said it was possible to remove 40 to 50 percent of the cost."
So which is it?
|
|
|
Post by northsider on May 8, 2014 12:12:12 GMT -6
I've designed, bid out, inspected, and construction managed many roadway projects at the local, county, state, and federal level. I've been in a position to accept or reject bids and have never been offered or accepted any type of kickbacks nor have I been directed to accept or reject any bid by any politician. Oh wait, I did accept a thanksgiving turkey once that a contractor was delivering to their clients and vendors. The turkey was good but I doubt it cost 40 to 50 percent of any project they bid on. What is your roadway construction experience that brought you to that 40 to 50 percent kickback number? Since you have worked in the field, could you explain to us how some of this really works? As others have said, it seems like many of these roads and bridges are falling apart way before they should. Do we really take the lowest bid? Is it based on some low quality product to keep the cost down?Should we be using a better quality product that would last longer? When you have designed some of these projects, do you come up with what the standard should be or do you follow other guidelines? When you design a project, what is acceptable life of the completed project? How does that compare to the expected life expectancy of projects that were built, lets say, 50 years ago? What type of cost analysis was used? I know that is a lot of questions, and it would be hard to answer in just a couple of sentences, but I would appreciate it if you could give it a shot. There are many factors that go into a road design such as traffic counts, traffic type, design life, design speed, sub grade material, pavement material, location, and cost. Typically a contract is awarded to the lowest, responsible bidder. In other words, if Joe Handyman wanted to have a go at road building and put in a lowball bid, his bid would be rejected. As for inferior materials, most materials such as concrete are tested as they are poured. If any batch fails any tests, it is torn out and repoured, at the contractors expense. Most pavements don't fail because of inferior products or shoddy workmanship. Most fail because this part of the country is brutal on roads. The multiple freeze thaw cycles every year is what does a great deal of damage. Once a pavement cracks and the subgrade becomes saturated, it is only a matter of time before the pavement will fail. Theoretically, you could build a road that would last for hundreds of years but it would be way too expensive to build.
|
|
|
Post by dive61364 on May 8, 2014 13:06:55 GMT -6
you are correct northsider. state testing takes place in the quarries beforehand. the sand has to be tested for coarseness , the gravel is tested for hardness and proper sizing as well as the dry mix composition. what they don't tell you is in the quarries shortcuts are taken and inferior products can be added to a mix to cut the producers cost. many a pool and driveway had to be replaced because inferior products were used in the construction process. usually roads are tested if one fails before one year has passed. the state will do core sampling in the sections that have failed. the normal warranty construction companies will give is usually 1 year.
|
|
|
Post by dog on May 8, 2014 13:47:54 GMT -6
Since you have worked in the field, could you explain to us how some of this really works? As others have said, it seems like many of these roads and bridges are falling apart way before they should. Do we really take the lowest bid? Is it based on some low quality product to keep the cost down?Should we be using a better quality product that would last longer? When you have designed some of these projects, do you come up with what the standard should be or do you follow other guidelines? When you design a project, what is acceptable life of the completed project? How does that compare to the expected life expectancy of projects that were built, lets say, 50 years ago? What type of cost analysis was used? I know that is a lot of questions, and it would be hard to answer in just a couple of sentences, but I would appreciate it if you could give it a shot. There are many factors that go into a road design such as traffic counts, traffic type, design life, design speed, sub grade material, pavement material, location, and cost. Typically a contract is awarded to the lowest, responsible bidder. In other words, if Joe Handyman wanted to have a go at road building and put in a lowball bid, his bid would be rejected. As for inferior materials, most materials such as concrete are tested as they are poured. If any batch fails any tests, it is torn out and repoured, at the contractors expense. Most pavements don't fail because of inferior products or shoddy workmanship. Most fail because this part of the country is brutal on roads. The multiple freeze thaw cycles every year is what does a great deal of damage. Once a pavement cracks and the subgrade becomes saturated, it is only a matter of time before the pavement will fail. Theoretically, you could build a road that would last for hundreds of years but it would be way too expensive to build.
Thanks for the reply.You sorta summed it up in the last sentence, though. Price seems to dictate how things are done. I didn't necessarily mean sub-standard as to say, not up to what the bid states. I meant to say that maybe over the course of years, we have lowered the level of the standard for the type of asphalt or concrete used. I am not familiar with road construction but lets say in the 60's a six bag mix would be used and would last for 20 years. Now we have lowered the standard and bid it out as a requiring a 4 bag mix and we know it will only have a life expectancy of maybe 10 years. It seems now we just mill off a couple of inches of asphalt and put down a couple of inches of new over the top of the old base. Does that properly bond to the base to create as strong of a road as the original or did they just determine it would be cheaper to keep grinding it off every 2 years and replacing it?
I can understand about the climate and region we live in and what it does to roads, I just cant remember roads falling apart like they do now, and I don't think the climate has changed that much over the years.
What is the primary thing you have to deal with concerning a road project, designing it from a cost standpoint first, or a life expectancy standpoint first?
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on May 8, 2014 14:47:43 GMT -6
"I do believe we could cut 40 to 50 percent of the costs if they were bid without kickbacks." "I never said 40 to 50 percent kickback, I said it was possible to remove 40 to 50 percent of the cost." So which is it? Ok, I will give you that one, my phrasing was deceptive. Kickbacks are but a portion of the savings possible, efficiency is the rest of the process. Don't even attempt to tell me kickbacks aren't there, because they are. You are just too far down on the totem pole to get them. Think election contributions from the contracting companies. Trust me, they are there. You don't contribute, you don't work.
|
|
|
Post by chevypower on May 9, 2014 0:06:47 GMT -6
politics plays a roll everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by dog on May 9, 2014 8:52:50 GMT -6
It would be interesting to see what impact the truck traffic has on the roads. WE all know the huge payloads tear things up. Michigan allows even larger loads but distributes it over many more axles on a truck. Does that actually help save the wear and tear on the roads? If so, how much, and why don't we adapt similar standards? It would be interesting, we have been building interstates for a long time now. I am sure they have developed minimum standards that they have to be built to. The test roads were right up there in between Utica and Ottawa. They tested materials years ago for durability before they even paved the first interstate. Why do we make a disposable plastic water bottle that lasts for centuries for pennies, but a road that costs millions of dollars a mile that will be nearly destroyed in a decade? That was what I was curious about. Back then, did we build these roads using overkill, making them stronger than they needed to be. Did those standards increase as the traffic counts and the weight of the traffic increase? Is the standard now to build a road with a planned obsolescence of only a few years?
|
|
|
Post by oldtimer on May 9, 2014 11:11:35 GMT -6
The gov't itself lives on welfare. All they do is tax,tax,tax While holding a gun to your head forcing you to give up your earned money you worked hard for and give it to them. Rocket you are a joke. In this thread you say that all the government does is tax, BUT in another thread you are complaining that the government is going to stop paying for your other halfs medication. How do you think the government raises money to support you? It has to cone from somewhere. Everybody with their hand out and then those same people are complaining about more taxes? Give me a break.
|
|