Martin Weiss Former FHWA

employee

What to do by the next ITED

What to do by the next ITED Martin Weiss, now a consultant

We will be in a funding austerity for at least a few years. There are two things to do in that period to help us avoid actual disinvestment. One is to address the problem of funding small Components of projects.

Which Instrument is most important?

Big Projects Have Lots of Components How do you get the B/C or Econ Impact of a Component

Note the cable stayed bridge. It was added just for prettiness. Was this an important component ?

If a potential grantee maintains that one component has higher b/c than project as a whole,

• It should require independent analysis to

accept that premise • Also specific and explicit endorsement of

the concept by the granting agency.

The other problem to address:

• The late in the game addition of enormously expensive aesthetic improvements to projects.

• i.e., “The Horror of Prettiness”

Case study: The Sarbanes Transit Transfer Center in Silver Spring, Maryland – below

This is the old transit center and yes, it is ugly

l

Why Build a New Transit Center? It, per its supporters, would bring -Prestige Corporate Offices -Classy Entertainment Facilities -Upscale Shopping - Luxury Residential Buildings

All the Good stuff happened without the prettiness. The Transit Center, planned for opening in 1998 for $20M; redesigned, re-planned, redesigned, etc.; named for Senator Sarbanes in 2006 Might open in 2015 – cost will be over $120M

Thus the economic development impact of extreme prettiness seems to have been grossly over estimated. The existing facility could have been prettified modestly for $1M

The Cost of Prettiness in the Bay Area

Above is the Hayward San Mateo Bridge after widening from 4 to 6 lanes

Widened in 2003-2004 from 4 to 6 lanes Kept the Post and Beam Design 7 miles of bridge, 2 miles over 100’ clearance Cost of widening $200M Little cost of extreme prettiness

The Post and Beam Solution to the Oakland SF Bay Bridge Not Pretty but cost was estimated at $400M

Pretty Solution to replacing the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge = $6.4 Billion

Current Auto Tolls in Bay Area Antioch, Benicia-Martinez, Carquinez, Dumbarton, Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, and San Mateo-Hayward Bridge = $5

San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge $4 or $6 So all users of bridges pay for the extreme prettiness of the SF-Oakland bridge Revenue per year ~$600M; Debt Service ~$250M

Peace Arch Bridge – Buffalo to Ft Erie

Twinning the Arch Bridge was estimated to cost $65 M in 1998

Favored Design = $400M ?? Would be Pretty

Currently Unable to Proceed for Environmental Reasons

Conclusions Somebody should mention opportunity cost someday If we think extreme prettiness only improves QoL and only improves economic development, a little we should say so. Maybe a subject for research. I’m depressed thinking about this if my conclusion is What I think it is.

Slide Number 1Slide Number 2Slide Number 3Slide Number 4Slide Number 5��The other problem to address:Slide Number 8Slide Number 9Slide Number 10Slide Number 11Slide Number 12Slide Number 13Slide Number 14Slide Number 15Slide Number 16Slide Number 17Slide Number 18Slide Number 19Slide Number 20