dagblog - Comments for "We Built This Country on Infrastructure"

I am keen for the cradle to

moat — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:41:19 +0000

I am keen for the cradle to cradle notion but work in the ala carte world of the LEEDS approach. It sucks but is better than watching re-runs of Leave It To Beaver. It is also better than having no pressure on manufacturers to make better stuff. That is to ask: How far is anybody from the Starving Man motivation? The people who get to work in the fully prepared work place are very few.

The structure of the deal regulates how things get designed. Change orders are not always about extracting profit from the lack of the client's foresight. Some clients create a situation by having work proceed before important matters are worked out. Others don't.

Donal,maybe you already know

artappraiser — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 01:37:11 +0000

In reply to We Built This Country on Infrastructure

Donal,

maybe you already know about this but in case you don't:

http://www.observer.com/2011/real-estate/abcs-and-net-zeros-city-buildin...

Family faces $2,500 water

Donal — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 14:11:16 +0000

In reply to We Built This Country on Infrastructure

Family faces $2,500 water bill — for leak not even on their property

The Croskeys' saga started in March 2009, when Auburn's finance department tagged the family for a "possible leak" after their meter showed they were consuming more water than usual.

The family was flagged for possible leaks eight months later, and again in January 2010. Last March, the "possible leak" became a certain leak when the meter showed the family had consumed about 547,000 gallons in two months. The family normally consumed from 9,000 to 11,000 gallons every two months.

City utility technicians walked the yard at least twice and couldn't locate the leak, Croskey said. They found a section that appeared to be wetter than the surrounding area. After several hours of digging, there was still no sign of the source. A neighbor who'd had similar problems joined the search, and together they located a pool of water in a neighbor's yard, 2 to 7 feet behind a fence on Croskey's property line.

"Are they saying I should have been looking in my neighbor's yard, too?" Croskey asked, noting the house behind his family's home had been empty all winter.

The family's formal appeal of the bill, to a three-member committee composed of City Council members, resulted in the bureaucratic equivalent of "talk to the hand." The committee did not give a reason why it would not reduce the bill, and Councilman Rich Wagner, chairman of the Public Works Committee, did not respond to a call and e-mail to discuss the situation Friday.

Low bidders do often seem to

Beetlejuice — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:31:32 +0000

In reply to We Built This Country on Infrastructure

Low bidders do often seem to spend more time trying to justify change orders than executing the project.

I recently left a defense contractor who did one better than justifying change orders...they were able to get the contract amended so they would still be paid for services rendered so long and system performance did not drop below 90% monthly.

Here's the catch. So long as they kept a 90%+ performance level, they could ignore problems. There was one problem there before I arrived and still there when I left. I knew what was causing the problem was but everyone refused cooperate...I was told it wasn't my job. As long as the performance level was high enough no one cared even though pilot training was taking the hits due to non-performance of the system. A year after I left, their performance level did drop close to or just below the coveted 90% threshold and the company dispatched a team of engineers to fix the problem. This problem had a life span of 4 to 5 years before any action was taken on the part of the contractor to correct. In the meantime, pilot training was impacted as well as the fuel expended.

It was definitely a low bid contract because I was working with the prime contractor few years earlier when the bidding was going full swing. One of the engineers I worked with was involved in the negotiations and he told me the other competitor was so hungry for the contract they were cutting everything to barebones where it would be a profit loser, not a profit maker.

Of course, the USAF is quite happy with the performance of the low bidder, but completely unaware they're being charged engineer wages for people who are completely naive.

On some big public

wabby — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 02:30:31 +0000

In reply to We Built This Country on Infrastructure

On some big public construction project (years ago, obviously), after all the bids were gathered, the lowest and the highest were thrown out of the contest. I do not recall how the selection was then made, but I remember thinking at the time that tossing out the bid on either end as being a step in the right direction.

The penny wise, pound foolish policies legislatures are now flinging at the public are insane. It's too bad common sense, as in maintaining and mending what infrastructure exists now and still functions well, ain't all that common.

What we like to see is a

Donal — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:49:15 +0000

In reply to Low bidders do often seem to

What we like to see is a tight group of bids. If someone is way low, it tells me they missed something. If someone is way high, it tells me they didn't have time to bid and threw a safe number at it to be courteous. But convincing a client not to take the way low number is very hard.

Some architects are trying to promote the cradle-to-cradle idea, but it hasn't caught on as well as LEED, which is more of a laundry list than a holistic approach.

I've been meaning to post about the Landscape Urbanists vs New Urbanists struggle, which sounds something like what you describe.

Low bidders do often seem to

artappraiser — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:30:44 +0000

In reply to We Built This Country on Infrastructure

Low bidders do often seem to spend more time trying to justify change orders than executing the project.

This strikes me as key to something bigger. In that sometimes hiring the more expensive guy ends up cheaper and more efficient in the end. Don't know how to express it well yet.

Strikes me that environmentalists (used for want of a better word) and teaming up with the build-build-build-make-make-make-tear-down-build-again (you know, like China) crowd and it could bite them in the ass. Making for jobs, yes. Sustainable environment, maybe not so much (like China.)

In checking Wisconsin media lately because of the union thing, it was interesting to run across some in agreement with Walker's turning down of the Federal rail project that were not all what I would expect. More like the anti-development crowd, the country mouse vs. the city mouse, the ones that hate those city folk coming and tearing up the woods with their snowmobiles....they'd probably be happy if you demolished Ike's interstate, too, go back to just having those leisurely state highways (where your only choice was locally produced food.)

Oh that tricky reply dialog

jollyroger — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:45:00 +0000

In reply to I'm going to assume you

Oh that tricky reply dialog box...

Having, with difficulty, fought down the impulse to post the Starship's rejoinder that we built this city on rock and roll, I am moved to refer back to my fantasy State of the Union post where Prez addresses just this issue (and when I wrote it, I had no idea about the 500 bridges--my eyes are popping)

I was just pulling stuff out of my ass, but this post puts flesh on the bones, to mix metaphors..

How is this not a FEMA worthy emergency?

I'm going to assume you

Donal — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:05:00 +0000

In reply to So you'd rather Democrats go

I'm going to assume you posted this in the wrong place because your comment has nothing to do with what I posted..

So you'd rather Democrats go

Kevin Lyda — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:18:56 +0000

In reply to We Built This Country on Infrastructure

So you'd rather Democrats go back to the Senate in Wisconsin and allow Republicans to gut unions? That would be the better option?

I'm well off and would not be financially affected by such attrocious legislation. However I have respect for folks who would be.

You clearly have none.