# Obama's new "New Deal" & civil PE's



## aphex (Dec 8, 2008)

So with Obama's newly announced plans for the largest government-funded infrastructure (roads, bridges, school buildings, etc.) upgrades since the 1950's, I was wondering if any engineers (especially civil) have thought about the possible positive implications this could have on (especially) PE-holding civil engineers?

I am speaking a little out of my league here (I'm mechanical) but to me it sounds like a potential increase in demand for you people?


----------



## MGX (Dec 8, 2008)

aphex said:


> So with Obama's newly announced plans for the largest government-funded infrastructure (roads, bridges, school buildings, etc.) upgrades since the 1950's, I was wondering if any engineers (especially civil) have thought about the possible positive implications this could have on (especially) PE-holding civil engineers?
> I am speaking a little out of my league here (I'm mechanical) but to me it sounds like a potential increase in demand for you people?


What do you mean "you people"?

j/k

I recognize the need for new infrastructure, the words of Obama are still thus far the words of a politician wanting to get elected so I give it a weight of around 10% fact/true intent to 90% BS.

It would be fantastic to have again a light rail in my city. I say again because we did have one in the '30s to the '40s but GM bought them and paved roads over the rails so we would buy more cars in the '50s. While I'm not in favor of getting rid of my car it would be nice to be less dependent on it. In addition the bus routes here are expensive and never on time.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Dec 8, 2008)

The word on the street about this next round of "stimulus" is that the projects need to be ready to go in the first or second quarters of 2009, i.e. they already have to be designed and ready to bid so that the money starts being spent right away. So, do the math, we typically spend one or two years designing a wastewater plant. That means that the engineering work has already been done and what they are proposing is using federal dollars to pay for the projects in lieu of, in my case (wastewater treatment plant), a publicly owned utility. The same goes with highways, bridges, etc. It's not as if there are stacks and stacks of plans are sitting on a shelf waiting to be bid/built.

Besides this fact, Obama clearly does not recognize the lessons of the New Deal. That money has to come from somewhere. My guess is that this makes the problems last longer and very few will benefit.


----------



## DVINNY (Dec 8, 2008)

I have had 6 requests last week alone to get projects ready for a funding application by January 20th.

Every freakin' client now thinks they will get a fully funded project. So YES, I've thought about the implications for us Civil's and so far it sucks. It has created an expectation that I doubt will be fulfilled, and now our clients want projects ready ASAP.

Even if we stay up all night and try, it is not a good thing as far as finished products go.

A bunch of funding would be great, but this speculation shit has everything messed up already, and it has just begun.


----------



## Chucktown PE (Dec 8, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> Every freakin' client now thinks they will get a fully funded project. So YES, I've thought about the implications for us Civil's and so far it sucks. It has created an expectation that I doubt will be fulfilled, and now our clients want projects ready ASAP.Even if we stay up all night and try, it is not a good thing as far as finished products go.
> 
> A bunch of funding would be great, but this speculation shit has everything messed up already, and it has just begun.


Ditto. I have one client I am working with right now and they are smart enough to know that they aren't going to meet the time constraints, however, I am concerned at pushing this much design engineering through the system at such a fast pace. I worry that we are going to end up with very poorly designed infrastructure which is going to cost a lot of money short term, and even more in the long term, all in the name of getting things going in the first half of 09.


----------



## DVINNY (Dec 8, 2008)

We can see that but it is a catch 22, because even within our firm, the higher ups see it as a chance to make $$$. And I do too, but at the same time.....

ya know.


----------



## IlPadrino (Dec 8, 2008)

What about design-build rather than design-bid-build?


----------



## benbo (Dec 8, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> We can see that but it is a catch 22, because even within our firm, the higher ups see it as a chance to make $$$. And I do too, but at the same time.....
> ya know.


Whether you agree with the bailouts, or the spending or whatever, if you're in business, and it's raining money, it would be stupid not to put out a few buckets. You can always pour it out later.


----------



## Road Guy (Dec 8, 2008)

even if it passes, it may not help the whole economy, but the infrastructure does need some work, people have not been willing to pay for those improvements, and therefore politicians have not had the intestinal fortitude to bring forth whats really needed in most states, a new transportaion tax, or to raise fuel taxes (really the only "fair tax")

The problem I see is that if all the money goes straight to the states and not split out to the local governemnts also, it will become fubar...


----------



## cement (Dec 8, 2008)

I think we just went from starving to buried alive. I'd rather be busy, but not recklace. But it's good for the industry and for the country, makes more sense than giving people checks to go buy a tv set made in china.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Dec 9, 2008)

cement said:


> recklace


Reckless? Can't say I've even seen that particular misspelling.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Dec 9, 2008)

I think the people who recieve welfare should work on the infrastructure projects, or get off welfare. that would kill two birds with one stone.

Of course, the politicos won't do this...


----------



## Road Guy (Dec 9, 2008)

This would also be a good time to scrap a lot of the wasted crap mandated by the feds, like noise studies for small projects like traffic signal upgrades (&amp; all the other huge waste of time and money that slow down any project with federal money)

I would like to see FHWA almost done away with, except for dealing with the interstate system.


----------



## csb (Dec 9, 2008)

Let me throw this out there....remember how a few years back we were stressing a FHWA bill? Around maybe 2003/2004? When it was on continuing resolution for a few months. The FAA has been running on continuing resolutions for a few years now. For instance, right now the bill Congress gave us is only good for 32% of the anticipated funding. Airports can decide a few things, like playing a game show:

1. Gamble and go for it, hoping they get the money.

2. Scale back projects to the current funding, then go for massive change orders if it comes through.

3. Roll the money to a later year, with the understanding that even that might go away.

The other kicker? We can't have plans on the shelf if the design was paid for with FAA money. If it isn't constructed in two years after design, the money for design has to be paid back to the FAA.

So while I agree with not spending money we don't have, it'd be nice if we could quit getting screwed over. Either we have money, or we don't. Just let us know.


----------



## Vishal (Dec 9, 2008)

Road Guy said:


> This would also be a good time to scrap a lot of the wasted crap mandated by the feds, like *noise studies* for small projects like *traffic signal upgrades* (&amp; all the other *huge waste of time and money *  that slow down any project with federal money)
> I would like to see FHWA almost done away with, except for dealing with the interstate system.


I am involved in traffic related noise studies and traffic signal design (most of it is new signal design). There is no way that FHWA will get away with noise guidelines, it is a big industry. Plus, citizens complain about it all the time (even on for a non-interstate system) so there has to be some form of guidelines to demonstrate to the general public if their claim is valid or not. It is a sizable industry, and more and more research is being done into the materials that go in for the construction of the walls. Now, apart from all that.. who doesn't love job security? I say do noise studies for everything!!!!!

Traffic signal upgrades (in Florida) has been mandated, in part, due to hurricanes. If a project intends to modify span wire signal and if the signal falls within 10 mile radius of the coastline then it needs to be upgraded to a mast arm signal. Of course, all the new signal in this radius has to be mast arm signal. Now there is some investment done in changing old incandescent bulbs to LED's.. I say it is a good investment and signal maintenance guys will swear by it. It saves thousands of dollars in electricity bill for the maintaining agency.


----------



## Road Guy (Dec 9, 2008)

I'm talking about a traffic signal upgrade at an existing signalized intersection and we have been told by FHWA to do a noise study, there is no chance of installing a noise wall anywhere in the area, yet sometimes you have to waste the time and do the study to check some box on a form.


----------



## Vishal (Dec 9, 2008)

How do the common public who demand noise walls be told at a later date that we can not do it? People need some sort of documentation. In urban areas, it is not feasible to put noise walls but the impact should be documented nonetheless. It is a hassle, but I believe that it is here to stay as more and more communities and citizens are getting fussier about noise. Also, noise can be attenuated by several means and putting a noise wall is one of the alternatives. There are special type of window panels available that claim to reduce noise.

I mentioned scenarios of existing signal upgrades in my original post.


----------



## DVINNY (Dec 9, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> What about design-build rather than design-bid-build?


That needs to be its own thread. I think it could be a great one too.



cement said:


> makes more sense than giving people checks to go buy a tv set made in china.


Agreed.



Capt Worley PE said:


> I think the people who recieve welfare should work on the infrastructure projects, or get off welfare. that would kill two birds with one stone.
> Of course, the politicos won't do this...


EXCELLENT IDEA.



Vishal said:


> How do the common public who demand noise walls be told at a later date that we can not do it?


They want to live in the city, then buy f'in earplugs. Or move out and listen to the birds chirp.

It's not that hard really.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Dec 9, 2008)

DVINNY said:


> ...It's not that hard really.


That's what she said.


----------



## engineergurl (Dec 9, 2008)

hmmm.... we do noise studies, but the traffic is large tracked armored veh that go boom boom at night, so I think it's justified to do a study...


----------



## cement (Dec 9, 2008)

so I had lunch with the governor today.

actually, there were 500 or so of us in the room. anyways, he told us about his meeting with the pres elect and said they will be looking for projects ready to go to ad in 180 days. details will follow.

he also said that there are 6 or so states that the electric grid is out of whack and need major work on the infrastructure there. any ee's know about this?


----------



## csb (Dec 10, 2008)

We got a letter yesterday asking us to put together a list of projects that could be ready to go in 120 days with construction in calendar year 2009.


----------



## ALBin517 (Dec 11, 2008)

csb said:


> We got a letter yesterday asking us to put together a list of projects that could be ready to go in 120 days with construction in calendar year 2009.


120 days?

Our tree hugger won’t delineate wetlands until March.

Design is completed and applications go out in April.

State government won’t respond until July / August.

Local government approval might come in September.

Bid and award in October.

How many days is that?


----------



## Dleg (Dec 11, 2008)

This sucks. Our governor originally voted against the majority to become an independent nation back in the 1970s when this place became a US Commonwealth. He hates the federal government and is currently suing them. Given that I have heard nothing locally, I can only assume that he failed to get in on the infrastructure bail-out.

We do have USEPA looking out for us, though, and I heard they put in a big list of projects to finally provide 24-hour, potable water out here (whcih we still don't have), install new wastewater systems, and fix the dipaidated ones we already have.

Maybe it's time for me to move out and start my own enviro firm. Lots of NEPA compliance work coming up.....


----------

