Monday, June 8, 2015

In Response to "Where Do we get the Money"...

 In Response to "Where Do we get the Money"...

Mark Barrieau  June 8, 2015 at 5:36 AM

Jeff - the roads in Massachusetts are terrible, but folks voted no on the gas tax bill for a good reason. This state ranks near the very bottom in value for the dollar spent on road maintenance. The mantra appears to be "don't kill the job". Driving on Rt. 495 yesterday I saw a typical example of our tax dollars being wasted. 1.5 miles of cones, closing two northbound lanes culminating in 2 workers and a state cop doing nothing. It costs money to put those cones out, and there are vested interests at work to make sure that plenty of cones are put out. Sure, safety is important, but 1.5 miles is ridiculous.

Mass has very high road construction costs. We get lousy value for our tax dollars. I don't know if it's the construction unions who influence politicians to waste money as they do, or if it's the construction companies or both. The taxpayers are getting the shaft.

http://reason.org/news/show/21st-annual-highway-report-states
 

Ranked near the bottom. At least we ain't Jersey!
Reply
at

5 comments:

  1. dave smartJune 8, 2015 at 9:29 AM

    As i see it Mark not all but some that are low bidders are not up to the QUALITY we should get for the money. As with the products they use whatever is cheaper. A prime example would be the new tar job on 101 from E.T. to Gardner. Look at the new lines,no its not your sight its the quality or lack of it. As if the crooked lines aren't bad enough when you get to the one year old lines after graves the lines are worn out. As for Quality the tar mix is the first item and if not right you get tar that fails sooner. One contractor blames the other and we pay again to do it over. With the road miles in our town and the amount of money to use on it we will never catch up or ever have the roads we "all" want. Without the equipment to do the work we will have even less. We need some contractors and only ones that do quality work thats gauranteed. So would we have to put in the budget to paint the lines every year or two? That would mean less tar and more poor quality painting.
    As for the cones on the highway the cost to take down and put them back is more than we think. On our way back from York last year we were stuck in traffic for over a hour for cones put out. Four lanes reduced to two and when we got to the end of the no men working zone the one cop car was empty.The lane reduction was for the next day and nothing was going on. The amount of fuel wasted on countless cars was not any issue to anyone but the ones who were being delayed for no reason at all. We all go through it time and time again. So is the low bidder better for us in the long run? Do they care about the people they work for "us". What is your time worth?
    When a contractor does a shitty job they should be held accountable. They should not be allowed the work if not corrected and quality changes are made. The contractors not all but some who underbid and keep us from getting a quality job done are not cheaper at all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jeff BennettJune 8, 2015 at 10:26 AM

    So who signs off on jobs like that? Who is checking the specifications for the material? When bids are in and opened, who makes recommendations on who to accept. One last thing, the town is not obligated to accept the lowest bid.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mrs. FarrellJune 8, 2015 at 2:50 PM

    For road projects using Chapter 90 money, the contract is given to the contractor on the materials bid list that goes out every year.

    Every year there is a long list of materials that is put out to bid, including asphalt. These bids and the specifications are reviewed by the highway superintendent and town administrator and awarded by the selectmen.

    Once a contract is awarded, the town is required to use the company that was awarded the bid. To use a different company would trigger a breach of contract. If the low bidder is not accepted, then there would be a huge outcry from people saying the town was" wasting" taxpayer money...in addition to possible legal challenges to the awarding of the bid to the non-lowest bidder.

    It is what it is. You get what you got.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jeff BennettJune 8, 2015 at 3:33 PM

    Actually there is a provision in c 30b that in some circumstances you do not have to accept the low bid. for instance if the Town determines that the low bidder has had problems with other similar contracts such as workmanship or material problems. As a matter of fact, this was done in one phase of Back Bay where the low bidder was not accepted. And that would not be wasting taxpayer dollars, it would actually be looking out for them, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mark BarrieauJune 9, 2015 at 5:24 AM

    That other link seems to have gone dead.

    "Overall, Wyoming, Nebraska and South Dakota had the most cost-effective state highway systems in 2012, whereas Hawaii, Alaska and New Jersey maintained the least cost-effective systems. Kentucky, Wisconsin and Oklahoma produced the greatest improvements from 2011 to 2012, while Idaho, Louisiana, Virginia and other states dropped in the rankings. Reason Foundation’s 21st Annual Highway Report’s overall performance and cost-effectiveness rankings are:
    1. Wyoming
    2. Nebraska
    3. South Dakota
    4. South Carolina
    5. Kansas
    6. North Dakota
    7. New Mexico
    8. Mississippi
    9. Montana
    10. Kentucky
    11. Texas
    12. Missouri
    13. Georgia
    14. Ohio
    15. Wisconsin
    16. Maine
    17. Tennessee
    18. Iowa
    19. Arizona
    20. North Carolina
    21. Alabama
    22. Oklahoma
    23. New Hampshire
    24. Nevada
    25. Virginia
    26. Oregon
    27. Illinois
    28. Minnesota
    29. Utah
    30. Idaho
    31. Florida
    32. Michigan
    33. Colorado
    34. West Virginia
    35. Arkansas
    36. Indiana
    37. Delaware
    38. Vermont
    39. Maryland
    40. Louisiana
    41. Pennsylvania
    42. Washington
    43. New York
    44. Connecticut
    45. California
    46. Massachusetts
    47. Rhode Island
    48. New Jersey
    49. Alaska
    50. Hawaii

    The 21st Annual Highway Report is online here:
    http://reason.org/news/show/21st-annual-highway-report

    A breakdown of each state’s individual performance is online here:
    http://reason.org/news/show/21st-annual-highway-report-states

    And previous versions of the report are available here:
    http://reason.org/areas/topic/annual-highway-report

    Reason Foundation’s Annual Highway Report measures the condition and cost-effectiveness of state-owned roads in 11 categories, including pavement condition on urban and rural Interstates, deficient bridges, unsafe narrow lanes, traffic fatalities, administrative costs, and total spending on state roads. The study’s rankings are based on data the states reported to the federal government for 2012 except for the urban Interstate congestion rankings, which are based on the Texas A&M Transportation Institute’s congestion figures for the first time. Previous editions of the report utilized congestion data based on volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios published by the Federal Highway Administration. However, the FHWA has not published these tables since 2009.

    - See more at: http://reason.org/news/show/21st-annual-highway-report#sthash.i0CgDtWd.dpuf

    http://reason.org/news/show/21st-annual-highway-report

    ReplyDelete