|
Chaos Motor posted:Wow, that's crazy, in Project Management we were taught that over-bidding is just as bad as under-bidding, because over-bidding ties up money in an allocation that could have been used elsewhere. Every time I hear about someone coming in under budget, my gut reaction is "well, someone clearly padded that estimate too damned much!"
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
A company around here did a similar thing, high-balled and then expected praise when they came in WAY under-budget. It was also no bid, lots of angry people. The city looked bad because it was obviously a high-ball estimate but tried to play it off that their administration saved the city big money. At least they did do good work though, everything was straight and actually up to code.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
How come no-bid contracts still exist in the US?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:When we end up with left-over money, it's not like it disappears. It just gets spent later than it otherwise would have. We have hundreds of bin jobs that are shovel-ready and unfunded; as soon as that cash is available, they're out the door. Well of course it doesn't disappear, but there's a time-value to money, and tying it up in an allocation where it's not needed keeps you from doing those unfunded shovel-ready jobs immediately. The TVM for $13M over the span of the bridge construction is not chump change, and you could get more projects done, sooner. That's why it's a bad thing to over-estimate in Project Management. Koesj posted:How come no-bid contracts still exist in the US? The United States is ridiculously corrupt, we just have learned to write corruption into the statues so that it can't be prosecuted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
Koesj posted:How come no-bid contracts still exist in the US?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
No-bid contracts allow for quick common-sense leadership decisions to be made. If a good leader knows the best man for the job why go through the expensive red-tape of a bidding process and all the documentation and silly book-keeping and "accountability"? Just get it done, it's what we're trusting our leaders to do. Also what grover said, but grossly over-used. "As per city bylaw 3981:2 in the event of a time critical project the bidding process may be streamlined. This council believed time was critical in (totally not time critical project) and my brother in law's paving company happened to be by far the best people for the job. Yes we paid a premium for fast quality work and no we don't technically need to release the numbers for that. Freedom of information? Yes that exists but there's a clause saying that FOI requests that are clearly made not for information but to simply antagonize the city can be denied and this council has voted against the request to divulge the numbers!" Note this last part actually happened in my city. City hosed up big time on a bridge project that was started by lies and a botched referendum (oops we showed a light rail bridge? nope just cars! Oh and it's 30% over budget and hasn't even started yet). The one newspaper in town with any sort of journalistic integrity dug up numbers and memos and found tons of extremely shadey stuff so filed a FOI request to get all the financial numbers and information from thir secret meetings. Council voted that the newspaper was making an unreasonable and hostile request and simply denied the FOI. Also mayor ran on a platform of open government and accountability 
Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Oct 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:A company around here did a similar thing, high-balled and then expected praise when they came in WAY under-budget. Again, we have no say in what the estimated costs come out as, except for a few specific items. I put in 100 drums, Estimator spits out $94.20 each. I put in 4" white epoxy resin pavement markings, 2800 lf, Estimator gives me $0.32 per lf. I know they are going to use 2800 lf of markings, and I know they are going to use somewhere between 80 and 150 drums. There's not much more I can do. The only thing I have a say in is estimated items, like municipal police. For this job, I estimated $200,000, and the final price ended up being closer to $2 million because Middletown cops love OT. No way anyone beneath the Commissioner could've changed that outcome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
Let's see how Waterbridge turned out!  We couldn't do everything, but the most important changes have been incorporated. It would've been cost-prohibitive to work on the road network northeast of the city; that area is filled with factories. In spite of potential abandonment, all of the rail lines were kept available. You never know when this little depression might turn around, right? The final city for this decade will be New Dublin, unless you guys are getting bored and just want to jump to 1890. I think New Dublin deserves a good makeover!
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Let's see how Waterbridge turned out! New Dublin, please!
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
If we're getting close to 1890, all the people who still have railroads unaccounted for should probably speak up about what they want done with them, before they're all abandoned by default. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 07:11
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Note this last part actually happened in my city. City hosed up big time on a bridge project that was started by lies and a botched referendum (oops we showed a light rail bridge? nope just cars! Oh and it's 30% over budget and hasn't even started yet). The one newspaper in town with any sort of journalistic integrity dug up numbers and memos and found tons of extremely shadey stuff so filed a FOI request to get all the financial numbers and information from thir secret meetings. Council voted that the newspaper was making an unreasonable and hostile request and simply denied the FOI. Also mayor ran on a platform of open government and accountability And then the newspaper sued the council and the judge ordered them to release the information, right? Right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 11:20
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:If we're getting close to 1890, all the people who still have railroads unaccounted for should probably speak up about what they want done with them, before they're all abandoned by default. I was sorta holding back to see what everyone else was doing first. It's game theory at work! Oh, and Cichlidae, you never did answer my question about whether it was practical to extend light rail for Fairport commuters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 16:42
|
|
|
What is... light... rail? Everything is still steam, so it's still heavy. Do you mean electric trams?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
Whatever that yellow line on the city view represents. Aren't the trains that are currently in service mainly cargo trains?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
I would think commuters are well served by the multi track mainline railway running through their towns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
The modern light rail name doesn't get invented until the 1970s and the light rail concept as it were isn't a general thing until the 1950s, with post-world war II europe rebuilding cities and using the style of transport that becomes light rail. We're still in the latter 19th century here, so most of these trolley and tram services are still running with good old horse pulling them, others are running on in-road cable systems (San Francisco wasn't the only place they were used you know, they were wildly popular in many cities and on flat terrain), and a few are using the first electrical systems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:The modern light rail name doesn't get invented until the 1970s and the light rail concept as it were isn't a general thing until the 1950s, with post-world war II europe rebuilding cities and using the style of transport that becomes light rail. I'll post some examples later this evening when I get back from work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Oh, and Cichlidae, you never did answer my question about whether it was practical to extend light rail for Fairport commuters. As others have noted, "light rail" doesn't really exist yet. Trams, on the other hand, sure. There are still modest profits to be made in connecting suburbs. Since I didn't bother drawing the suburbs, though, you're going to have trouble New Dublin comes this evening, and after that, the bold future of 1890!
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
I keep not contributing to the thread as I just can't put out ideas fast enough and once anyone's posted any ideas of their own I feel like it's off-limits or has been "claimed"
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I keep not contributing to the thread as I just can't put out ideas fast enough and once anyone's posted any ideas of their own I feel like it's off-limits or has been "claimed" You're certainly allowed to second someone else's idea, or at the very least, provide some commentary! Don't be shy! So, here is NEW DUBLIN, 1880:   https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByQzqtNM0WuFWnRjUGtLV1QybU0 Thanks to the lucrative shore line, New Dub's built up a lot of rail-based industry. It has an extensive yard west of the city, which stores trains for the daily runs to and from New Cork City. Unfortunately, all this rail traffic is really starting to interfere with road and tram traffic. The crux of this problem is downtown, adjacent to the Central Station, where Main Street + tram crosses 6 tracks. Speaking of the tram, on its northern line, there are two sharp bends that tend to derail it. Rather messy. All three rail lines northeast of the city will probably go bankrupt shortly, if they're not already. Don't expend too much effort trying to fix them up, unless you're the charitable sort. So here are your goals: - Solve the traffic jam next to Central Station! - Fix those corners in the tram line to the north! - Build these guys a new park! - Keep as much of the existing city intact as possible!
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
Not to distract from this awesome game (which is fun to read) but this is pretty good: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3c0_1351184890 Cichlidae can you comment on the legal and design ramifications of this? There's a nice FAQ about the bridge, too: http://www.11foot8.com/faq.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Not to distract from this awesome game (which is fun to read) but this is pretty good: Ah, I've seen that guy's videos! You can never underestimate human stupidity, even among professional drivers. 11'-8" is downright roomy, though. We've got plenty of bridges lower than that - even a few under ten feet. Here is one that's 10'-11" on a freeway: https://www.google.com/maps?ll=41.7...308.96,,0,-1.17 It's 150 years old, and made of stone, and there are buildings atop it, so it's definitely not going anywhere. Under the freeway is a river. Yes, the bridge was built over the river, and the freeway atop that. Legal ramifications? Don't run into bridges. Any damage is absolutely your fault, as long as there's at least one sign there. Design ramifications? Replace them when they break, as long as it doesn't require TOO much work. One low-clearance RR bridge in Branford is costing us something like $40M to replace. https://www.google.com/maps?ll=41.2...p=12,86.22,,0,0
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 01:30
|
|
|
The line between Chenchester & Boltic and between Lake Oliver and the track east of Boltic can be shut down. I'd like to keep the tracks there, and build a road from Colhampton to Lake Oliver, in the hopes the towns will survive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Not to distract from this awesome game (which is fun to read) but this is pretty good: That video's made all the better because I drive under it every so often. It's even got a sister bridge a few miles down the track, although I guess that one doesn't have its own live stream.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
 Bridges over the railway! More trams, electrify them! These new electric trams require a place to sleep and be cared for so a tram yard by the rail yard. Also a modern 45 degree grid for grand future expansion. I'd also like to funnel my quarry fortunes into helping establish a university (marked in black) in New Dublin. New Dublin will be a marvel of modern technology, innovation, and industry! If we can't manage this plan in the time allotted, consider it a long-term vision. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Oct 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
Can we make a bridge across those rail lines for the road/tram yet? E;f,b.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
For some reason I'm imagining the station and tracks sunk into the ground a little bit and the city raised up a little, probably a totally wrong assumption. BUT it's the direction the city should go. Start ramping the roads up so they can cross the tracks! This was surprisingly common back in the day, my city for example has huge sections where the 2nd floor of buildings are now the 1st floor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 04:29
|
|
|
If the city centre can handle being essentially without rail access for a year or two (or more), I would suggest moving the main station a bunch westward, and then placing the entire rail line through the city centre below ground level. Not in a tunnel, just lower the entire terrain it runs on. That will make it easier to run roads over it. The station needs to be moved westward to allow the track to slope back up to cross the river, without making the grade too steep. (Unless, of course, some crazy engineer comes up with a way to tunnel under the river.) The northbound track west of the city probably can't join the east-west mainline reasonably when the track is lowered like that, so I would abandon that and build a new line around the west of the city. Would it be a problem, water-table wise, that the track might end up below sea level? In the time the construction is going on, temporary stations should perhaps be erected slightly outside the city. Another suggestion for the main station, which might make it easier to relocate: Have only the two central tracks be through, the two northern terminate the westbound line, and the two southern terminate the eastbound line. That should cut down on the space required for switching around the station. As for the north-western tram problem, make the line fork and each branch continue further down the road. End both of them with a neat loop, and build a
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Would it be a problem, water-table wise, that the track might end up below sea level? Apparently not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dundee_railway_station
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 14:58
|
|
|
We have a street running mainline service...  Talking about railways. I don't formally own any but these are the ones I think should be saved:  The key is, purple save/subsidise. Red should be mothball since the shortcuts could come in handy. The circled stuff is essentially where I think at one of the links should be maintained but I'm not sure which one is the best from a maintenance and travel time point of view. Essentially, I would like the link through Chenchester maintained, make sure we keep a regular through service through the coastal cities and the major city Meridian. I also think that one of the (many) links between Boltic and Deep Bend/Middleport should be maintained. [edit] Actually, could we build a new bit of line to make the Chenchester line through West Hartshire (presumably running near the road) and let the old stretch of line for that bit lay fallow. Also, I presume the Sanctum rail bridge will be turned to road use should the line it serve go. Munin fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Oct 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 16:04
|
|
|
I think I'll abandon my Waterbridge/Bridgefield line, but I think I should get my Deeb Bend/New Dublin line subsidized. It provides a straight shot from the capital to the biggest port in the state, and it's far less redundant than the Boltic/New Dublin line. Once the Boltic goes down, my line will start turning a profit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
Sorry, been busy. Here's an example from Toronto of radial that would be pretty close to what we'd call LRT today. This is more of an exception to the rule, but they still existed back then (and Toronto was smart enough to preserve it). 1928 (line dates back to the 1890s):  2011: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
Isn't that more like the equivalent of the tram services we have been setting up?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 20:21
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Legal ramifications? Don't run into bridges. Any damage is absolutely your fault, as long as there's at least one sign there. Design ramifications? Replace them when they break, as long as it doesn't require TOO much work. One low-clearance RR bridge in Branford is costing us something like $40M to replace. When they were working on the Merritt Parkway bridges, they had a big setup on one in particular where there was some kind of system to monitor overheight vehicles and then flash warning lights at them. Seemed like a lot of work for a road where trucks are banned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
What's the height where warnings have to be posted anyway? I don't think I've seen one for anything above 15 feet but it's not like I check closely either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
Munin posted:We have a street running mainline service... Hell yes we do!  Munin posted:Talking about railways. I don't formally own any but these are the ones I think should be saved: The tracks linking Salvation to Chenchester are going to be railbanked, so if you want to hold on to one, the connection to Mutnap should be it. That said, I'm pretty sure that when a line is meant to be subsidized, it's meant to be subsidized by another railroad. And that said railroad would need to have enough (imaginary) money to pay for track maintenance and the like. Might we get a clarification on this, Cichlidae? Munin posted:Also, I presume the Sanctum rail bridge will be turned to road use should the line it serve go. The NCL will be claiming the bridge for their own use. SlothfulCobra posted:I think I'll abandon my Waterbridge/Bridgefield line, but I think I should get my Deeb Bend/New Dublin line subsidized. It provides a straight shot from the capital to the biggest port in the state, and it's far less redundant than the Boltic/New Dublin line. Once the Boltic goes down, my line will start turning a profit. The NCL is interested in purchasing this line outright. How does 1/4th of its pre-crash value sound?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:What's the height where warnings have to be posted anyway? I don't think I've seen one for anything above 15 feet but it's not like I check closely either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 21:32
|
|
|
http://americancity.org/daily/entry/a-new-guide-to-urban-street-design Guide to better streets updated/released. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
smackfu posted:From some quick study, it's complicated like all things signage. The state sets a maximum vehicle height of 14' or so. There's a sign if there's less than a foot clearance, so 15'. But it's actually 15'3" in cold areas to account for frost heave and packed snow (but you don't print the 3" on the signs). And then if it's really short, like under 14', there's an extra sign at the nearest intersection that someone could turn at to avoid the underpass. Ah thanks. Makes me wonder what the rules are for utility wire height too, come to think of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
nielsm posted:Would it be a problem, water-table wise, that the track might end up below sea level? Only on occasion. Most anything below the water table will get flooded on occasion, but typically without any real permanent damage. smackfu posted:When they were working on the Merritt Parkway bridges, they had a big setup on one in particular where there was some kind of system to monitor overheight vehicles and then flash warning lights at them. Commercial vehicles are restricted, not banned. You can still drive on it with a permit. Moreover, things like U-haul trucks are not subject to that restriction. The warning system is also for workers, who are basically working in a box slung beneath the bridge. Hedera Helix posted:That said, I'm pretty sure that when a line is meant to be subsidized, it's meant to be subsidized by another railroad. And that said railroad would need to have enough (imaginary) money to pay for track maintenance and the like. Might we get a clarification on this, Cichlidae? Basically, yeah. The owner would need to own another (profitable) rail line to subsidize the track in the red. smackfu posted:From some quick study, it's complicated like all things signage. The state sets a maximum vehicle height of 14' or so. There's a sign if there's less than a foot clearance, so 15'. But it's actually 15'3" in cold areas to account for frost heave and packed snow (but you don't print the 3" on the signs). And then if it's really short, like under 14', there's an extra sign at the nearest intersection that someone could turn at to avoid the underpass. More than snow and frost heave, that extra 3" is to give a little buffer, and to allow us to re-surface the pavement, which usually adds an inch or two. Baronjutter posted:http://americancity.org/daily/entry/a-new-guide-to-urban-street-design I'll have to check that out. NACTO has a good book on bicycle design, as well, though AASHTO calls it "experimental." I like experiments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2012 00:17
|
|