Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where did I say that ALL of those things apply to all cheaper places?
European projects typically skip some of the public process, use more standardized rolling stock, and allow more disruption.
I don't know the wage scales or specific safety practices (my construction experience is limited to the Seattle area), but I wouldn't be surprised if they're a factor in many projects in Europe (even while retaining general safety and good wages). If you have building experience in those places please fill us in.
You said the main difference in cost per mile between the US and peers was safety, living wage, noise constraints, and contract fairness. Those were your big ticket differences.
At any rate, studies concerning the issue don’t note a statistical difference in worker pay (union or otherwise), material costs, geological constraints. The discrepancies seem to be most apparent simply based on the country the infrastructure is being built. To underscore the point, American infrastructure building costs used to be fairly in-line with peers. It became decoupled in the 70s after some legal changes. And therein is the issue. Red-tape in a myriad of forms (not all of it government-produced) is the number one cost driver. American infrastructure isn’t safer than Japan or Germany, it simply has more hurdles.
I've yet to see a good study. The limited examples I've seen seem to be by academics and not construction people. Who's comparing safety practices for example?
I also said closures. That's a big one. Noise is mostly a limitation on work hours, but the closure issue can mean many small phases instead of a few big ones.
Paperwork is a significant issue, but I'd assume it's a fraction of the total variance.
I've yet to see a good study. The limited examples I've seen seem to be by academics and not construction people. Who's comparing safety practices for example?
I also said closures. That's a big one. Noise is mostly a limitation on work hours, but the closure issue can mean many small phases instead of a few big ones.
Paperwork is a significant issue, but I'd assume it's a fraction of the total variance.
American projects do get caught up in much longer legal battles since basically everyone in town can sue to try to stop the project. And “community input” and such
Safety is usually measured in fatalities per 100 million miles traveled or a 1 billion km or what have you, and is put out by the countries. I think in general the US and most of Europe have similar rates and Japan is usually lower. Fluctuations and all.
I don't understand your point. We're talking about construction safety, not traffic safety.
I'm specifically talking about safe work practices. For example one city/state/country might allow a certain site logistics or occupied-site approach while another might not. This can substantially affect project schedule and cost.
I don't understand your point. We're talking about construction safety, not traffic safety.
I'm specifically talking about safe work practices. For example one city/state/country might allow a certain site logistics or occupied-site approach while another might not. This can substantially affect project schedule and cost.
Well it looks like in the construction industry in general, France and US are similar and most of the rest of Western Europe is lower (Germany and England significantly so). Certainly we aren’t adding hundreds of millions in costs for negligible safety gains.
What makes you think that? Do you have construction safety stats for similar trade/project categories, or even in general? Do you have insights on incident reporting in the US and elsewhere? Do share if you have this.
Further, do you have any idea of the sort of work approach differences that exist? Here's an example. In Seattle the yellow bumpy strips are chipping off at some rail platforms. In some countries they'd replace these incrementally while keeping the platforms open. In Seattle we're closing platforms for two weeks at a time and single tracking, with reduced service.
Now scale that up to a big construction job, and the phased, limited-hours nightmare we often get so businesses can stay open, residents aren't bothered, and risks are avoided to the crews and passers-by. This absolutely adds hundreds of millions on some big jobs.
Seattle also might spend $500 million extra for a new downtown-fringe station so the Chinatown/ID neighborhood isn't as inconvenienced, though the cheaper station might actually be better.
I think Hartford, despite its large, well Paying white collar economic base not having a real yuppifued Urban neighborhood is very sad.
This is pretty on point. Downtown has tried and tried to become livable/desirable over the past decades. It's a "just fine" downtown, but is pretty quiet, corporate-ish still and not really a magnet for living in Hartford.
Metro Hartford's suburbs are all really nice. West Hartford is where you go if you are a single, coupled or younger professional in the Hartford area.
But within the city limits of Hartford, it leaves a whole lot to be desired on many levels. They need to strive to be more like New Haven or Stamford.
This is pretty on point. Downtown has tried and tried to become livable/desirable over the past decades. It's a "just fine" downtown, but is pretty quiet, corporate-ish still and not really a magnet for living in Hartford.
Metro Hartford's suburbs are all really nice. West Hartford is where you go if you are a single, coupled or younger professional in the Hartford area.
But within the city limits of Hartford, it leaves a whole lot to be desired on many levels. They need to strive to be more like New Haven or Stamford.
Cities with much less wealth floating around in the metro like Providence, Buffalo, Louisville, Rochester all have at least 1 usually a few “hip urban neighborhoods”. And Providence has to compete with Boston very directly.
Hartford really should have some. While by New England standards it’s very high crime it’s not a very big outlier nationally.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
