[QUOTE=ewmayer;351753][URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-usa-california-bridge-idUSBRE98201X20130903?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews"]Record-breaking San Francisco Bay bridge to open after delays[/URL][/QUOTE]Is there a convenient example of a comparable-size-and-complexity project that came in on schedule and under budget, so that we might study what the relevant differences were?

For instance, we need to consider and rule out the possibility that the original schedule and budget for this project were both simply unrealistic, in comparison with original schedules and budgets of comparable projects.

Oh -- I should add that projects during the Great Depression (such as the original bridge, Boulder Dam and the Empire State Building) are ineligible for this comparison because the national economic conditions then allowed getting the most talented people to work for peanuts.

If we can't find any comparable on-time under-budget project outside the Great Depression era, then that might suggest something.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;351815]Is there a convenient example of a comparable-size-and-complexity project that came in on schedule and under budget...?[/QUOTE]

Just curious, why do you want that? Any project that is 6 years late and 5 times over budget deserves to be mocked.

[QUOTE=Prime95;351817]Just curious, why do you want that?[/QUOTE]For the reason I stated: that we might study, and learn from, the relevant differences. I'm interested in what we might find out about how to keep projects on-time and under-budget.

[quote]Any project that is 6 years late and 5 times over budget deserves to be mocked.[/quote]Okay, but I'm also interested in learning how such results might be avoided, rather than mere mockery without lessons learned.

For example, as I noted, might it be merely (or partly) a matter of unrealistic original schedule and budget? If so, how might planners make more realistic schedules and budgets for future projects? We have building codes that are the result of studying mistakes made in buildings in the past. Might there be some kind of planning codes?

Surely there've already been folks who've done such comparisons and published what they learned. How shall we gather that knowledge so that it's accessible "required" reading for planners?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;351820]Are you claiming that between the great recession and outsourcing-of-much-work-to-China, construction workers willing to work on the cheap have been in short supply these past 6 years?[/QUOTE]No, I'm not.

What I seek are comparable projects that came in on-time and under-budget, [I]in contrast to[/I] the new eastern span. IIRC, Hoover Dam and the ESB were such, but I want to eliminate macroeconomic factors if possible, so as to see what noneconomic factors differed between on-time, under-budget projects and those with gross overruns.

I happen to recall from reading and watching documentaries of Hoover Dam and Empire State Building that it was said that they each were able to attract the best planners and workers because there was little competition for such top folks' talents during the Great Depression. But what, exactly, differed between (a) what such folks did for those projects and what was done for other on-time under-budget projects, and (b) what was done on the new eastern span project?

So, I'll retract my ruling-out of Great-Depression projects -- they could well have had non-economic factors that contributed to their on-time-and-under-budgetness. What were those?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;351823]No, I'm not.

What I seek are comparable projects that came in on-time and under-budget, [I]in contrast to[/I] the new eastern span. IIRC, Hoover Dam and the ESB were such, but I want to eliminate macroeconomic factors if possible, so as to see what noneconomic factors differed between on-time, under-budget projects and those with gross overruns.[/QUOTE]Well this project came in very early. There were no cost overruns but a very large performance bonus for early completion; I recall politicians harrumphing about the bonus and wanting to know if they could renege. This is a much smaller project but it was very big to commuters here.
[URL="http://articles.latimes.com/1994-04-06/news/mn-42778_1_santa-monica-freeway"]Santa Monica Freeway to Reopen on Tuesday : Recovery: The contractor will get a $14.5-million bonus for finishing earthquake repairs 74 days early.[/URL]
April 06, 1994[QUOTE]Less than three months after the Northridge earthquake knocked down two sections of the world's busiest thoroughfare, Gov. Pete Wilson announced Tuesday that the Santa Monica Freeway will reopen next week, ending frustrating delays and bottlenecks for thousands of commuters.[/QUOTE]I remember driving past the construction. The lights were always on and they were busting their keisters 24/7.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5petm88AC4[/url]
[YOUTUBE]d5petm88AC4[/YOUTUBE]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;351936]I find a microeconomic analogy such as the following to be useful in terms of thinking about this issue: Imagine you were able to transport back in time to the mid-1930s, and compare the experience of buying a new-model car in both eras for a given identical fraction of the median wage at the time. "How much car" would you expect to get 80 years later, in terms of the various key features, efficiency, comfort, safety, reliability, etc?

Then, would you expect a similar argument to apply to big-infrastructure and public-works projects? If not, why not?[/QUOTE]
No, for large infrastructure I would not expect such vastly improved value-for-money in the 2010s compared with the 1930s as I would expect for quality of motor vehicles. But I [I]would[/I] expect a huge improvement between the quality of infrastructure in the 1890s compared with the 1810s. Different types of technology experience their rapid improvement in different eras.

Good response, Brian. I would have to think that our 13-year-old, 100,000+ mile Honda Accord would be better than luxury cars of the 1930s, if only for air conditioning and fuel economy.

Being the General Manager of a company having worked on the new San Francisco Bay Bridge for over the past ten years, I can point out one reason for the increased cost. The State of California sets prevailing wages for workers on any State funded project that are much higher than the usual Union wage rates. (I believe this is payback for political support by the Unions for politicians.)

For example, here are some rough comparisons of straight-time hourly wages for three different categories of our workers:

Union Wage vs. State Prevailing Wage
$40 vs. $55
$25 vs. $50
$18 vs. $45

The State spent a lot more on labor than necessary.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;352944]Perhaps inspired by a glass of sherry I was enjoying just then, I lobbied hard to add decant (sherry for one) and codecant (sherry for 2 or more) to the curriculum, alas unsuccessfully.[/QUOTE]Under Category Theory, I would expect codecant to put the wine back in the bottle. e.g. [URL="https://plus.google.com/102162264382073173725/posts/hNtEQVqrxkS"]Happy Co-valentines day[/URL]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;352958]Perhaps the issue is nomenclatural confusion, but I believe you are referring not to the complementary function implied by the co- prefix, but rather to simple neg-decant , written -dec(x), and sometimes referred to wishfully by hangover sufferers as the 'recant' function.[/QUOTE]I do not believe those functions exist; drinking is a trapdoor function.

In other news, yet another article suggesting a Financial Transaction Tax: [URL="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/09/a-new-tax-to-raise-money-for-t.html"]A New Tax to Raise Money for the US and Slow High-Frequency Trading[/URL][QUOTE]What Does It Get Us?

According to the projections of an admittedly optimistic study, up to $350 billion a year might be raised by an ambitious tax on stock and bond trades, options, swaps, futures trading, etc. This FTT would not apply to the day-to-day financial transactions of individuals and business, such as banking, loans and initial capitalization (raising money from investors).

To generate so large a sum, stock transactions would remain at or above their present volume and be taxed at a 0.5 percent rate. In financial parlance, that would be 50 "basis points" or hundredths of one percent. Fifty basis points or bps (pronounced "bips") is equivalent to $5 on each $1,000 traded.

Yes, taxing a good or activity tends to discourage buyers and result in less demand. But how much less would you buy -- of anything -- if the price went up by half-a-percent? Moreover, for bonds and other speculative transactions, the rate would be only a tiny fraction of even that amount (1 basis point; that's 10 cents on each $1,000. Existing FTTs in other countries vary from 10-50 bps on stocks.)

But, as calculated several years ago by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, even allowing for a 50 percent decline in trading volume, 50 bps of extra revenue on trading would still generate more than $175 billion annually.[/QUOTE]

I think a 50bp stock transaction cost will cause a 90-95% drop in US stock volumes, not 50%. Take the UK as an example. They have a 50bp transaction tax on stock purchases. So people buy CFDs instead.