Stock markets doom !

[craz07]

Thats false it was a 1690cc so that translates to 103.13 ci, I rounded it out to 1700 cc's...

[SysError]

... check out Mike Duncan's Podcast ...

Thanks.  Downloaded them and playing them now. 

[Brooke]

What is the name of the bridge?

The 520 bridge.

Here's some info in case of interest.

From
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520Bridge/financing.htm
Cost estimate = $4B
right of way land = $90M
Eastside construction estimate = $306M (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520Bridge/MedinaTo202/default.htm )
Westside construction estimate = $2.3B from:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/8A0EA86F-7A41-40C3-9428-08E092FA3CBA/0/SR520_CEVP_WSCostEstimates20102012.pdf
Bridge iteself then is $2.3B - $306M = $2B
6 lanes
112 feet wide
1.44 miles long (7,578 ft)


Old bridge (see http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520Bridge/Photos/historicgallery.htm )
cost $21M for whole project (bridge plus other stuff) in 1961 dollars ($161M in 2012 dollars)
Opened in 1963
4 lanes
1.44 miles long
60 feet wide
Traffic as of 2013 is 115,000 vehicles per day

So, new bridge project is 25 times as expensive as old one in inflation-adjusted dollars.
The new bridge costs $269k per foot.

[Brooke]

Were Gibbons named after him?

No, but he was named after gibbons, as he had unnaturally long arms.

[zack1234]

He was arrested once for touching pies in pie shops

[mbailey]

Thanks.  Downloaded them and playing them now.

If your intrested I can list a bunch of history related podcasts I listen to..... I at one time was going to start a squad forum here relating to podcasts, books etc that we could discuss, trade ideas or post good ones that we come across    Make it an ask to join type sub forum .......hmmmm still may do it     Would have to ask skuzzy if it's ok tho

[SysError]

The 520 bridge.

Intro to thoughts on SR 520.

1 of 6

Thank you for replying with the name of the bridge, your current thoughts and the links.

I am curious as to how much common ground we have and where we differ. 

I want to say at the outset that I do not engage in these community posts with any delusion that minds are going to substantially change.  White middle aged (or older) western males, (or perhaps just all mature men worldwide, I do not know) rarely publicly acknowledge a change in their positions.   If they do, it is usually because the issue is inconsequential to them, or, they find themselves trying to find a face saving eddy to shelter in until the storm passes.  A consequence of Argument as War where learning equals losing perhaps?

https://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_h_cohen_for_argument_s_sake?language=en


For me anyway, I tend to think that because writing is a “linear” process, whereas thinking is not, that writing helps me to organize and sharpen my thoughts.  In other words, it is a pretty selfish endeavor.

Let me also say from the outset that I once was, for a short period of time, exposed to the concrete construction sector and that experience colors my perspective.  I am sure as we go through this, I am going to say something like, “Well, I would expect that to cost twice as much in real terms” and someone, who is either an estimator, a construction worker, a planner, etc., might say “Nope, we do that a lot more efficiently these days, so I would expect it to cost less.”  In other words, I hope that anyone who has something positive to contribute, whether through experience, reason or research, does so.


If I were to phrase your thoughts on the subject as a motion, it might look something like this:

“The SR 520 Seattle replacement bridge is outrageously expensive when compared to the costs of the 1963 bridge in real terms.”


So with that as my reference point let’s begin.


Here are some of the thoughts I originally had when I saw your post identifying the bridge.  (I have organized them to make an easier read.)

•   It does sound like a substantial increase on adjusted basis $161M vs. $4B.

•   Is the method of comparison and its calculation reasonable and accurate?

•   Are the two projects really similar?

•   Are there any significant differences to consider?

•   Are the bridges performing the same function?  (6 vs. 4 lanes is one obvious place to look at)

•   Why a per foot calculation?


Many of these issues can be combined or grouped into three areas:

1.   Economic

2.   Project scopes and prevailing standards

3.   Miscellaneous


When I followed your link http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520Bridge/ I was quickly impressed by the size, or perhaps even the boldness, of the project.  It looks amazing!







I started to jump around the site looking at different topics, documents, photos, videos, live cam feeds etc.  I was, and still am, quite envious of the level and quality of the information that your Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has put together.   You guys are really lucky.  I say lucky because over here on the east coast there have actually been cases in some jurisdictions were legislators have literary had to sue the governor to find out where funds went for this or that project!  (And then, with under the threat of, or actual, court order the information is usually released in an as obscure a manner as possible).

It looks as if WSDOT provides information on a number of other projects.  I do not know how much effort they put into every project, or whether they have a well-functioning quality control process or if every subject/topic that should be covered is.  But to me the WSDOT’s outreach and community inclusion efforts look impressive.

For those not familiar with the bridge project, here are two videos that convey some sense of the size of the project:

Video of existing SR 520 bridge:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNTWpImJFE4

Video of replacement SR 520 bridge:  (IMO of the two, this is more interesting):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPaLhOZU_uU

[SysError]

Motion:
“The SR 520 Seattle replacement bridge is outrageously expensive when compared to the costs of the 1963 bridge in real terms.”

2 of 6

The Economic Issues:

•   It does sound like a substantial increase on adjusted basis $161M vs. $4B.
•   Is the method of comparison and its calculation reasonable and accurate?

First question: is $21M of 1961 dollars about $161M in 2012 dollars?  Yes, if you use the real Consumer Price Index (CPI).  So the next question is: is real CPI a good or appropriate way to measure value across time for this type of project, heavy bridge and highway construction.  There is a very strong argument, in fact I would go so far as to say that the argument is conclusive, that in the case of the SR 520 project at hand that CPI is not a good way to figure out real dollars.

CPI is a measure of consumer purchases (of a common basket) tracked from one time period to another.  So if you bought a loaf of bread 10 years ago and you wanted to figure out what, based on a simple measure of inflation, you should be paying for it today, use CPI.  CPI is a reasonable way to look at commodities; it does not work well with say income or things like construction projects.   (BTW; there is a huge issue with CPI, but that is another discussion).  Economists use different means to figure out relative value in different contexts.

Another quick word about CPI; it is by far the most widely quoted deflator out there.  You see it in newspapers, on the news; it impacts government and most private cost of living calculations, etc.  You see it everywhere.  It is by far the most commonly understood measure of inflation.  It does not, however, show you that because a loaf of bread that cost you a dollar yesterday and two dollars today, that a construction project that cost you 100 dollars yesterday is going to cost you 200 dollars today.

Let me back up a bit.  When I saw your reply post I said to myself “I bet he is using real CPI”.  Which after a quick calculation, I know for a fact that you are.  The issue is that economists know that context is king.

When economists are presenting their thoughts on the economy to the general public, what they know they have to do is to get you to buy into their context of the problem being addressed.  So, for example, conservative economists are always pointing to the ratio of government spending to GDP.  For conservatives, most of the time, getting you to buy into the comparison of whatever you are looking at to GDP is key.   Government spending is engorging the Sword of Damocles!




The end is nigh!




Liberal economists usually respond by saying; “look that relationship, when inflation is low, does not mean a thing.  If inflation is low and the economy is in a slump, invest in infrastructure and boost aggregate demand, it is the cheapest time for the government to do so.”  So, the buy in for liberals in this case is that you can tell if government spending is too low during a recession if inflation is low.   You could almost say that liberals think “Government spending ratios to GDP are mostly, but not always, meaningless.”  They might even think: you would probably be just as accurate to compare Government spending ratios to the projected organic carrot crop in any given base year!”   (There is actually some proof for this!)

Again, the issue is that in economics CONTEXT IS KING.

After figuring out that you had used real CPI, I went to find a construction deflator that memory tells me exists.  I googled and looked and googled and looked on just about every government site I could find.  Nothing!  I found stuff that was interesting, http://www.census.gov/econ/construction.htmlbut not what I was looking for: A deflator for heavy bridge and highway construction by region. 

I did find this:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/WPUFD432&series_id=WPSFD432

Series Id:     WPUFD432
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Group:        Final demand
Item:          Construction for government
Base Date:     200911

Looks interesting, but series starts in 2009.

Start here if you want to look up a series yourself: http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

I did find the following interesting site at http://enr.construction.com/economics/.  From what I can tell, this looks like what we need here.  Problem is that it is behind a paywall, and I don’t really know if it is something that is workable for our purposes. 

My guess is that the index that I am thinking about (from many moons ago), was one that was put together by an industry group.  It is not uncommon, to have/use private data series, the issue normally is the length of the series and QC issues.

(I did try to look for what I wanted in our own library.  I grabbed a cup coffee, went downstairs, dusted off an old text book and I started to flip through the index and TOC.  Somewhere in that bookshelf is a book on comparative economic statistics and indexes that I know has a reference to a construction index.   But, after a while I thought “This is going to take a while”.  I went back upstairs and I started to google away again.)

After a while I came upon:

http://www.measuringworth.com/

Interesting site.

In part, their stated mission is to provide “a methodology for deciding which measure of worth is appropriate for the subject at hand.”

Now since we all know that if something is on the internet it must be true, I spent some time deciding whether or not the site was run and put together by credible people, or a group of co-conspirators trying to figure out how cheeky they can get before Skuzzy shuts them down for a violation.

[SysError]

Motion:
“The SR 520 Seattle replacement bridge is outrageously expensive when compared to the costs of the 1963 bridge in real terms.”

3 of 6

Economic Issues (cont.):

From what I can tell they have an impressive Board of Advisors http://www.measuringworth.com/aboutus.php.

It looks as if the content of the site is mostly put together by these two guys:
Lawrence Officer
http://www.measuringworth.com/aboutusof.php
Samuel Williamson
http://www.measuringworth.com/aboutuswl.php

And of course the content is very good.  Crisp and to the point, obviously put together by educators who know how to communicate economic principles.  I would say the content of the site is what you would expect to cover in a second year econ class, or possibly a second semester class during the first year, at a half way decent college or university.

They state that they have two missions:

“The first is to make available to the public the highest quality and most reliable historical data on important economic aggregates, with particular emphasis on "nominal (current-price) measures, as well as real (constant-price) measures.

The second is to provide carefully designed compartors (using these data) that explain the many issues involved in making value comparison over time.”

http://www.measuringworth.com/aboutus.php

The second mission statement reminds me of this:

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.
- Mark Twain

I also should say that these guys come from a tradition that I don’t usually follow or necessarily agree with.  I see as them as “University Chicago” types.  But that said, what they present is crisp and clear.  (I am sure that a Keynesian has done the same thing, but I couldn’t find a site from their perspective).

Another way of expressing what they are doing is:

“A purchasing power calculator compares the relative value of a past amount of dollars to a present amount. A simple calculator uses only the prices of consumer purchases to do this computation, whereas a complete purchasing power calculator, such as found on this website, uses various prices, wages, output, etc., depending on the context.”

Context is King.

So let’s look at your statement:

“[The] Old bridge … cost $21M for whole project (bridge plus other stuff) in 1961 dollars ($161M in 2012 dollars)”

Go to Officer/Williamson’s calculator:
http://www.measuringworth.com/m/calculators/uscompare/

And use the values 1961, $21 and 2012, and you get the following table result:

In 2012, the relative worth of $21.00 from 1961 is:

$161.00   using the Consumer Price Index
$125.00   using the GDP deflator
$192.00   using the value of consumer bundle
$183.00   using the unskilled wage
$219.00   using the Production Worker Compensation
$352.00   using the nominal GDP per capita
$602.00   using the relative share of GDP

If you need help/ determining which result is most appropriate for you, see Choosing the Best Indicator to Measure Relative Worth.

In a non-tabular format at the top you will see:

In 2012, the relative value of $21.00 from 1961 ranges from $125.00 to $602.00.

A simple Purchasing Power Calculator would say the relative value is $161.00. This answer is obtained by multiplying $21 by the percentage increase in the CPI from 1961 to 2012.

This may not be the best answer.

The best measure of the relative value over time depends on if you are interested in comparing the cost or value of a Commodity, Income or Wealth, or a Project. For more discussion on how to pick the best measure, read the essay "Explaining the Measures of Worth."

And at the bottom you will see:

If you want to compare the value of a $21.00 Project in 1961 there are four choices. In 2012 the relative:

•   historic opportunity cost of that project is $125.00
•   contemporary opportunity cost of that project is $192.00
•   labor cost of that project is $183.00 (using the unskilled wage) or $219.00 (using production worker compensation)
•   economy cost of that project is $602.00

For them a project calculator means:

“A Project is either an investment, such as construction of a canal or installation of a cable network; or a government expenditure, such as the financing of Medicare or a war. Also within this category are such items as the size of a government budget deficit, and the total assets or net worth of a company.”

And using the    economy cost calculator makes sense when:

Economy Cost of a project is measured using the relative share of the project as a percent of the output of the economy.  This measure indicates opportunity cost in terms of the total output of the economy.  The viewpoint is the importance of the item to society as a whole, and the measure is the most inclusive.  This measure uses the share of GDP.

Of the choices they provide, the Economy Cost is by far the best fit.

It would be nice to have a heavy construction index for bridges and highways in the North West, but I do not have one.   Using real CPI makes no sense.   Using their Project measure and comparing relative value by the Economy Cost factor IMO provides you with one fair way of thinking about what that project should cost today.

So I would say that in this case, $21M of 1961 dollars does not equate to $161M in 2012 dollars.

I would say that a fairer analysis would say that $21M of 1961 dollars equates to $602M in 2012 dollars.

Context is King.

Is it perfect?  No.  I would accept even a 10% swing.  Does it make sense to compare to a share of GDP?  If you are a conservative economist it does!  Is there a “liberal” way to make the comparison?     Yes, but I cannot find a site that is as elegant as:

http://www.measuringworth.com/.

[SysError]

Motion:
“The SR 520 Seattle replacement bridge is outrageously expensive when compared to the costs of the 1963 bridge in real terms.”

4 of 6

•   Are the two projects really similar?

In your post reply you say:

The new bridge will cost = $4B
And that is made of the following pieces:
•   Right of way land = $90M
•   Eastside construction estimate = $306M
•   Westside construction estimate = $2.3B from:
•   Bridge itself then is $2.3B - $306M = $2B

You then say that the Old bridge cost $21M for whole project (bridge plus other stuff)

And using real CPI in 2012 dollars it is $161M

“So, new bridge project is 25 times as expensive as old one in inflation-adjusted dollars.”

$161,000,000.00 x 25 = $4,025,000,000.00 is how I assume you got there.


Data on the New Project:

The legislative budget cap for the project was $4.65B
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520Bridge/Budget.htm

From what I can tell, they saved some money here and there but they fear that they could eat up a lot of that savings later.

•   The difference between 2010 and 2012 estimates for Floating Bridge, Pontoon and Eastside projects is primarily due to a favorable bidding environment and retired risks with completion of the environmental documents and permitting.

•   The difference between 2012 and 2014 estimates for the remaining unfunded elements is primarily due to escalation and risks associated with delivering the remaining scope of work.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/661509A0-3C1B-4A4E-9719-13EFE4A35E94/0/2015_0116_SR520_CEVP_CostMap_Final.pdf

The only thing that I could see that was unfunded was $1,566 M for the I-5 through West Approach.  (I assume it was budgeted, and they are just waiting on the exact funding source.  But I do not know)

Overall as of 2014 overall they looked under budget by $180M.  They have the SR 520 Program Total for 2014 at coming in at $4,471 M.

I know you had the just the bridge construction number at $2B, I am not sure how you got there.  At one point I thought that I had it, $2.077B.
 
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520Bridge/Budget.htm

But that number is not just the bridge.  It includes a lot more work than just the bridge.

I looked here: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FFB41DA9-DC53-4906-891C-C4A643ED0627/0/2015_0513_SR520ExpendituresToDate_ThruDec2014_FINAL.pdf.  While it is detailed, I do not know enough about the area to go figure out what is what.  My guess is if some had the patience and the local knowledge they could figure out a close enough just bridge number.

In the end I just settled on this data and said 630M+561M+696M=1,887B

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/661509A0-3C1B-4A4E-9719-13EFE4A35E94/0/2015_0116_SR520_CEVP_CostMap_Final.pdf


Tell me, am I getting something wrong?  (I really am not even sure what body of water we are actually talking about!)

So I guess 1,887B is close enough to 2B to move forward.


Data on the Old Project:

You say about the old project

“[The] Old bridge…cost $21M for whole project (bridge plus other stuff) in 1961 dollars”

I am not sure I agree with you.

Go to page 4, page 11, page 13 and page 14 of the August 1963 Bridge Opening Program. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D2751414-2ED6-435C-AE18-EDB24A7178E3/0/1963_SR520_BridgeOpening_Program.pdf

On page 11and again on page 13 the cost of the bridge is put at $22.5M (1963 $).  And as you can see, it does not include “bridge plus other stuff”.  It is just the bridge.   Page 14: The total construction price (which includes the construction costs of the “other stuff”) was $63.7M.  When you add in the right of way the cost is $89.5M.

One big caveat, most of the line item amounts are listed as “final estimates not available – this is the contract bid price”.  So I think that it would be very reasonable to expect that the actual final cost was north of that.  This is all a guess, but here is one reason to accept that the final cost was probably higher.

Go to page 2 of the Washington Highway News, July-August 1963, Volume 1 No.1.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr520bridge/memorylane/pdfs/WHN_7-8_1963.pdf
Right at the top: so and so “…will officially open the $24,972,000 2.3 mile structure….This combination of the bridge and the freeway, which cost more than $ 80 million ….”

Two items standout, 1) The bridge is cited as 2.3 miles long, the old bridge is listed as 1.43 miles long.  2) The number 80 million is just too perfect a round a number, plus it is not clear if it is for construction + right of way.  But what the heck.  Any ideas?  My guess is that it is construction only. 

I am going to assume that the 1963 bridge cost $25M.

So where does that put us?

I think that comparing the 1963 bridge costs to the 2014 entire project costs is an error.

Comparing the two at a total project level does not make much sense.  There are far too many things that are just different.  For example, there is no East Roanoke St to NE 104th way construction in 2014.
 



A 1963 bridge cost to 2014 bridge cost seems like the logical thing to do.

Assume:
1963 bridge cost $25M
2014 bridge cost 1,887B or $2B

Based on your original CPI approach you would be at $192M in 2014 dollars and you might claim that the 2014 project is 10 times as expenses as the 1961 bridge in real dollars.

(192,000,000.00x10.42=2,000,000,000.00)
Or
(192,000,000.00x9.83=1,887,000,000.00)

Based on a more appropriate deflator that number would be at $717M in 2014 dollars and it would be fair to say that the project is about 3 times as expenses as the 1961 bridge in real dollars.

(717,000,000.00x2.79=2,000,000,000.00)
Or
(717,000,000.00x2.63=1,887,000,000.00)

The reason I took the time to run through CPI here was to show that if you had used a bridge to bridge comparison you would not be saying that the project is now 25 times as expensive, you might say that it is 10 times as expensive.

[SysError]

Motion:
“The SR 520 Seattle replacement bridge is outrageously expensive when compared to the costs of the 1963 bridge in real terms.”

5 of 6

BTW: Just to make clear, as I have tried to explain; in this case the right deflator to use is not real CPI.  I picked a method that I thought was more appropriate.  If you think that I made a bad choice, OK, suggest another method.  I would love to discuss it with you.

Check out: Tutorial 4: A Beginner’s Guide to Choosing the Best Deflator
http://www.measuringworth.com/tutorial4.php


•   Are there any significant differences to consider?
•   Are the bridges performing that same function?  (6 vs. 4 lanes is one obvious place to look at)

Saying that the modern project is just a little shay of 3 times the cost of a similar project 51 years ago and that’s OK, is a little hard to accept.   At the scale of this project we are talking about $1,170M to $1,283M.  That is a lot of money.

So the question that comes to mind is have there been changes in capacity, standards or function that might explain the additional funds?

These are just some of my own thoughts.

One quick side note:  I know that we all like to think of a simpler time when things were cheaper and things just got done right.  Well 50 years ago on the SR 520 bridge project they had to deal with (or just ignore) their “Ramps to Nowhere” problem:
http://www.520history.org/1956-Present/WSDOTPeninsula.htm

Last paragraph:

“Two ramps connected to the new bridge across Lake Washington that opened in 1963, but the ones intended for the expressway have remained in place but incomplete and unused for 50 years.”

Here is just a high level review of the changes to capacity, standards and function over these past 50 years that have been applied to the current project. 

I am leaving out standard upgrades to engineering and construction standards (which have been substantial by themselves).

My source documents are here:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520Bridge/About/BridgeFacts.htm

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6414BF77-3EF7-46F8-91C0-AB132388431D/0/SR520ProgramFolio.pdf


•   The new bridge is a little bit longer by 132 feet
•   You will get 2 new HOV lanes
•   The new bridge is light rail capable
•   There will be a new 14-foot-wide bicycle and pedestrian path
•   There will now be real shoulders on the bridge.  These new shoulders will allow disabled vehicles to pull out of traffic, which you cannot currently do.   On the inside you’ll have 4 feet wide shoulders; on the outside you will have 10 feet outside shoulders.
•   The Roadway deck width at mid span alone will go from 60 to 116 feet.  6 lanes for traffic and 14 feet (Bike Lane) + 28 feet (for shoulders) 
•   At mid span the bridge will be 7 feet higher and east navigational channel clearance will increase by an addition 6 feet.  This means that you will not have to have a draw span.  You have one currently and it opens at least once a day and disrupts traffic.
•   The new floating bridge is designed to withstand sustained winds of up to 89 mph (100 year storm standard).  Your current bridge is rated at 77 mph.
•   SR 520 has been designed to better withstand earthquakes.

BTW: I do not know what your thoughts are, but do you think these columns are going to stand much of a chance in an earthquake or bad storm?  (I know that this is the current West Approach, but it illustrates the point)




http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520Bridge/Projects.htm

•   Rebuilt overpasses and on- and off-ramps throughout the project area will improve traffic flow
•   New noise-reduction solutions and techniques will lower highway noise for nearby neighborhoods and parks
•   Polluted runoff will be captured and filtered before being released into Lake Washington and streams
•   New roadway structures and fish-friendly culverts will remove fish migration barriers. (I cannot figure out if this applies to the float bridge or somewhere else.)
•   75 year design life


On the issue of:

The new bridge costs $269k per foot.

Besides the issue of how one gets there, it is a little unusual to see a per foot cost in an engineering or construction context.  I am not saying that some reporter on some morning show is not going to say “it cost xxx per feet”, I am saying that with a very few exceptions, in construction its per ton, per cubic yard, etc.,  (The only thing I can think of that is usually, but not always, quoted in per foot is concrete street gutters.)




Sometimes, but not usually, concrete sidewalks are quoted in square feet.  Concrete, for example (in the US) is mostly quoted in cubic yards.

Look at it this way.  Assume that the length of the bridge is fixed.  If you had a four lane bridge you would take the cost of the bridge and work the per foot cost based on length.  Think what would happen if you now had an 8 lane bridge.

I suppose that if someone wanted to convey a sense of expense in the vernacular, perhaps a per square foot cost might be better.

I did find something that was a little interesting though.  You guys paid an average of $176.13 per cubic yard for concrete pavement and $732.52 per cubic yard for structural concrete.  4000 psi concrete (pavement concrete) over here a couple of years ago went for between $95 to $135 per cubic yard.  I wonder why you guys appear to have paid a lot more for the stuff.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/A8EE6CB0-46F6-4EE8-95A3-62E9B793F31C/0/CostIndexData.pdf

The reason it is interesting is because on average Concrete Pavement was $176.13 per cubic yard and Structural Concrete was $732.52 per cubic yard. 

[SysError]

Motion:
“The SR 520 Seattle replacement bridge is outrageously expensive when compared to the costs of the 1963 bridge in real terms.”

6 of 6


So here is where I am.

I believe that the 2014 bridge is about 3 times the cost of the 1961 bridge.

The changes to capacity, standards and function seem to explain the need for additional funds.
(BTW:  I would expect newer construction techniques to drive costs down, but other factors easily overwhelm this cost advantage.)

The purpose of the project seems well thought out and it looks as if you guys in Seattle will have the advantage of significant infrastructure for years to come. 

You guys in WA are really lucky to have WSDOT, them seem like a first rate agency.  (Have they messed up in the past?  I am sure they have.  Will they mess up in the future?  I am sure they will. Humans and organizations make mistakes.)

There are many judgement calls in economics.  But there are also are a number of worked out principles that are not judgement calls.  Well, at least among the vast majority of recognized economists.  Perspective is important, and it is usually most helpful when you get the context right.  Context is King.




I would vote against the motion.

[craz07]

funny in some way hahahahahha

[Brooke]

White middle aged[/b] (or older) western males, (or perhaps just all mature men worldwide, I do not know) rarely publicly acknowledge a change in their positions.

I don't often see anyone, western or not, white or not, male or not, mature or not, change their opinions, publicly or not. 

[Brooke]

is real CPI a good or appropriate way to measure value across time for this type of project, heavy bridge and highway construction.

Indeed a valid point.  I have nothing to use other than CPI.

You can't use an index of just bridge construction cost, though, because that would enable inclusion of inflation of graft to justify more graft.