Efficacy of Private vs. Public Sector Construction Projects

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
How about the John Hancock office tower in Boston, where the glass wall panels kept popping off the building? I'll be that one wasn't under budget once they paid for fixing the problem.
ATLANTA had a hotel with that window problem as well. Replacement windows were a large multiple cost of original windows as original vendor no longer could produce them.
 
The private sector has lots of flaws and lots of inefficiencies but I’m not aware of any private company that would have let project costs balloon like that have for (for example) East Side Access.

Ever tried to build a power plant?
There is a certain political contingent that thinks having the private sector build these and then sell the power to public utilities is magically better than having public utilities build them.

There have been two big nuclear plant construction projects in the past 15 years. One [sorta] private (Vogtle 3/4 in Georgia) and one public (Summer in South Carolina.) Both of them have gone many years and many billions of dollars over budget. In a curious twist of fate, the private project has received government assistance to the tune of ten figures, while the public project caused the bankruptcy of the lead contractor on the project.

Or we could just stick with railroads. The Northern Pacific was chartered in 1864 to build a line to Puget Sound, with the expectation that it would progress similarly to the Central and Union Pacific... and took six years to lay a single rail. Twenty years, a couple bankruptcies, and a half dozen presidents later, it finally opened. Ask Jay Cooke how rapidly the railroad gobbled up all the money he made off the Civil War.

Canadian Pacific, one of those ever-popular "public-private partnership" arrangements, came in five years late. Canadian Northern and National Transcontinental would have quietly sunk out of sight into the muskeg if they hadn't been taken over by the government.
 
Last edited:
Ever tried to build a power plant?
There is a certain political contingent that thinks having the private sector build these and then sell the power to public utilities is magically better than having public utilities build them.

There have been two big nuclear plant construction projects in the past 15 years. One [sorta] private (Vogtle 3/4 in Georgia) and one public (Summer in South Carolina.) Both of them have gone many years and many billions of dollars over budget. In a curious twist of fate, the private project has received government assistance to the tune of ten figures, while the public project caused the bankruptcy of the lead contractor on the project.

Or we could just stick with railroads. The Northern Pacific was chartered in 1864 to build a line to Puget Sound, with the expectation that it would progress similarly to the Central and Union Pacific... and took six years to lay a single rail. Twenty years, a couple bankruptcies, and a half dozen presidents later, it finally opened. Ask Jay Cooke how rapidly the railroad gobbled up all the money he made off the Civil War.

Canadian Pacific, one of those ever-popular "public-private partnership" arrangements, came in five years late. Canadian Northern and National Transcontinental would have quietly sunk out of sight into the muskeg if they hadn't been taken over by the government.
I loved the Bank of Montreal ads for the CP centennial year. Yes, they financed it, but with methods that would have modern investors demanding heads to roll.
 
An example of a successful public sector project.

In 1958 the New York Central wished to divest itself of commuter service on the Highland Branch which ran through the western suburbs of Boston. The branch no longer had any freight service either. Boston's MTA the public transit system saw an opportunity to expand service and took over the line. A short tunnel was built connecting it into the existing Boylston St. subway. Overhead wire and signaling was installed and some fairly basic stations built as well as a yard and park-and-ride lot at Riverside near Boston's Route 128 circumferential highway (now I-95). the existing trolley fleet was augmented by converting some Cambridge trolley lines to trackless trolley (trolleybus). The line was completed on time and within budget and was up and running by July 4, 1959. A moribund rail commuter service was turned into the first modern Light Rail system in the US and a jewel in the MBTA's crown so to speak.
 
The whole idea that private sector builds with amazing efficiency and the public sector can't build anything on time or on budget is such a stupid myth.

At least I never said that the private sector builds with amazing efficiency or that the public sector can’t building anything on time or on budget.

My specific point is stated above.
 
At least I never said that the private sector builds with amazing efficiency or that the public sector can’t building anything on time or on budget.

My specific point is stated above.
Your statement is clear that you think the private sector is better at it than the public sector, and there is no evidence of that. That somehow it would be better if the private sector were involved in public works projects (forgetting that they already are, all public projects use private contractors and workers). Comparing one project to another is just cherry picking and isn't real data.

Public works get in the news when something goes wrong, so that's always people's perception of "how government works." When a public works project goes smoothly nobody notices. Nobody would know that projects like Dallas light rail or Chicago's south Red Line rebuild came in on time and on/under budgets.
 
Your statement is clear that you think the private sector is better at it than the public sector, and there is no evidence of that. That somehow it would be better if the private sector were involved in public works projects (forgetting that they already are, all public projects use private contractors and workers). Comparing one project to another is just cherry picking and isn't real data.

Public works get in the news when something goes wrong, so that's always people's perception of "how government works." When a public works project goes smoothly nobody notices. Nobody would know that projects like Dallas light rail or Chicago's south Red Line rebuild came in on time and on/under budgets.

Actually, there’s a lot of evidence that the private sector, in general, uses capital for infrastructure more efficiently than the public sector does. There are plenty of studies showing that- just try Google.

There are plenty of public-sector projects that are done on time and below budget, and plenty of private-sector projects that are delayed and over budget. And the private sector makes plenty of mistakes and wastes plenty.

But my point, as again stated above, is very well documented.
 
There is a lot of pro private sector propaganda in these.

I worked for a Fortune 500 company that no longer exists due to the incompetency of its Wharton educated Chairman/President. He once stated to me he would have been richer than Trump had he been funded by his father as Trump had been.
Lots of Biz School Whiz Kids crash and burn in the Corporate World, also when they try out Government Work!
 
How about the John Hancock office tower in Boston, where the glass wall panels kept popping off the building? I'll be that one wasn't under budget once they paid for fixing the problem.
That's actually a poor example since it wasn't a case of a project taking forever or massively over budget. The specific issue with the Hancock was that the technology designed was actually in advance of the technology available and installation skill. Poor choice but not inefficiency per se.

The technology used there is now common, but the materials have caught up to the design. Lots of poor design happens - the Vidara Death Ray hotel in Vegas and it's cousin in London, the Scorchie-Talkie which both focus the sun to melt objects on the ground. Same architect I might add....
 
There are plenty of poorly built high-rises - I can think of one luxury condominium tower in Chicago that has fairly major settling in one bay. But those aren't necessarily inefficiencies, just poor workmanship.

The MBTA example above sounds a lot like the Skokie Swift in Chicago as well, quick and cheap public sector project that turned out to be a success.

I could also mention the Harold Washington Library in Chicago as an example of problems with public construction (the design of the building, planning specifically, is flawed and inconvenient, but it's reasonably well built and won the public competition because 'it looks like a library') in that the desire to use minority contractors backfired - why? Because it's a government project the payouts take longer because the approvals are stricter. How did it backfire? Most of the contractors were small and couldn't wait until they got paid, while a larger company would have had other income streams (however, this is really getting off the efficiency of government vs private projects I think).

I think the power plant and old RR company examples are interesting, but power plants are notoriously complex and slow to build (especially if atomic) and raising money for RR construction was tricky and rife, in the 19th C, with graft and corruption...

Anyways, rant over, back to our regularly scheduled programming...
 
There have been two big nuclear plant construction projects in the past 15 years. One [sorta] private (Vogtle 3/4 in Georgia) and one public (Summer in South Carolina.) Both of them have gone many years and many billions of dollars over budget. In a curious twist of fate, the private project has received government assistance to the tune of ten figures, while the public project caused the bankruptcy of the lead contractor on the project.

Speaking of said project at long last:
https://www.powermag.com/vogtle-3-r...ty-marking-pivotal-nuclear-startup-milestone/
 
Private companies can cherry pick their projects, public works have to take place no matter the task and problems encountered...
There is also cherry picking in public works. It just happens on a different level. Politicians wanting to get re-elected and maybe influenced by or in fear of a press who like to stir and magnify problems, will coalesce towards projects that come with vote-winning ribbon-cutting opportunities. Such projects are not always identical to the projects most urgently needed, but favor the short-term quick-win and big-bang type of investments. After several generations of politicians playing this game, people start to realize we have more vanity and nice-to-have projects than we need, but a creaking and overloaded infrastructure, that is increasingly at risk of failing.
 
I agree that actually answering to investors does provide discipline, but don't fool yourself: private sector companies rarely answer to investors.
This is in part the fault of investors who don't hold executives to account.

As a (small style) investor myself, I am often disappointed by the lack of critical and tough questions raised at shareholder meetings for example. Many small investors just buy for expected profits or stock price gains and don't really study the company or its activities.
 
Ever tried to build a power plant?
There is a certain political contingent that thinks having the private sector build these and then sell the power to public utilities is magically better than having public utilities build them.

There have been two big nuclear plant construction projects in the past 15 years. One [sorta] private (Vogtle 3/4 in Georgia) and one public (Summer in South Carolina.) Both of them have gone many years and many billions of dollars over budget. In a curious twist of fate, the private project has received government assistance to the tune of ten figures, while the public project caused the bankruptcy of the lead contractor on the project.
One reason such projects often run over budget is caused by the government or their agencies basically re-writing the specs after the contracts have been signed, or even while construction is in progress. Many nuclear plants overrun budgets because safety requirements get re-written half way through construction. Of course safety in nuclear plants is a good thing, but it's maybe unfair to blame the private contractor.

Something similar happened to Eurotunnel, where a massive re-writing of the safety rulebook forced the company to the verge of bankrupcy.
 
There seems to be something about projects in New York. They could design and built an outhouse and it would end up costing a million dollars and be 3 years late in completion.
Arlington Virginia is looking to compete with New York for spending the most money on relatively simple projects. Arlington decided to build a bus stop on a fairly busy boulevard and somehow managed to spend over a million dollars. And the design is open to the west and north with a roof that cantilevered up in that direction so if the wind is blowing when it rains, it does not shelter the people waiting for the bus. And the "weatherproof" TV screens tended not to work at first because, wait for it, they got wet too often.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/million-dollar-bus-stop_n_3022883
In Arlington's defense, the TV screens were fixed fairly quickly, it was the first bus stop of its type and Arlington only paid $200,000 of the $1,000,000.
VDOT paid the rest.
Sorry Downstate folks!
 
Last edited:
Plenty of countries are able to build public sector projects efficiently. Historically that included this one: the Hoover Dam was built for $50 million, or $800 million at today's prices. Could we even build a bridge of that length for below a billion today?

The problem isn't necessarily that we contract out projects rather than having three Army Corps of Engineers build them, either. In the 1860s - with the Civil War causing massive shortages of manpower, steel, and gunpowder - the Transcontinental Railroad cost $30,000 per mile to build, paid out to the Union Pacific / Central Pacific. Yes, there was enormous graft, but even then that still comes out to $800,000 per mile today - on an all-new alignment while fending off attacks from hostile Indian tribes, without access to bulldozers, tunnel boring machines, etc. Compare to the proposed Uinta Basin Railway in Utah, crossing 120 miles of similar sparsely-populated terrain on an all-new alignment, for an expected cost of ~$3 billion - if it ever gets built, which after three years in court is looking increasingly unlikely.

The reason for our exorbitantly costly public-sector projects is first and foremost the downright Byzantine regulatory environment surrounding them.
 
Or we could just stick with railroads. The Northern Pacific was chartered in 1864 to build a line to Puget Sound, with the expectation that it would progress similarly to the Central and Union Pacific... and took six years to lay a single rail. Twenty years, a couple bankruptcies, and a half dozen presidents later, it finally opened. Ask Jay Cooke how rapidly the railroad gobbled up all the money he made off the Civil War.

Canadian Pacific, one of those ever-popular "public-private partnership" arrangements, came in five years late. Canadian Northern and National Transcontinental would have quietly sunk out of sight into the muskeg if they hadn't been taken over by the government.
Let's not forget the original US transcontinental railroad. The government funded Union Pacific and Central Pacific to build the railroad. Credit Mobilier built the railroad for $50 million and billed the government for $94 million. Union Pacific executives (who controlled Credit Mobilier) pocketed the extra $44 million. Plus they made a lot of money selling land on either side of the tracks, which, once settled, provided business for the railroad.

UP eventually paid off the government (around 1897 for billings from the 1860s) after it went bankrupt. The wikipedia article about the scandal doesn't say anything about the UP creditors who got screwed during the bankruptcy of the 1890s. Seems to me it would have been better all-around if the government had built the thing for $50 million and then recouped the costs by directly selling the land themselves.
 
Plenty of countries are able to build public sector projects efficiently. Historically that included this one: the Hoover Dam was built for $50 million, or $800 million at today's prices. Could we even build a bridge of that length for below a billion today?

The problem isn't necessarily that we contract out projects rather than having three Army Corps of Engineers build them, either. In the 1860s - with the Civil War causing massive shortages of manpower, steel, and gunpowder - the Transcontinental Railroad cost $30,000 per mile to build, paid out to the Union Pacific / Central Pacific. Yes, there was enormous graft, but even then that still comes out to $800,000 per mile today - on an all-new alignment while fending off attacks from hostile Indian tribes, without access to bulldozers, tunnel boring machines, etc. Compare to the proposed Uinta Basin Railway in Utah, crossing 120 miles of similar sparsely-populated terrain on an all-new alignment, for an expected cost of ~$3 billion - if it ever gets built, which after three years in court is looking increasingly unlikely.

The reason for our exorbitantly costly public-sector projects is first and foremost the downright Byzantine regulatory environment surrounding them.
The Transcontinental Railroad had a few cost advantages we don't have today. No land acquisition costs, as the land was basically stolen from the Indians, and back then, the tribes couldn't tie up the project in court for years, and they were using coolie labor (literally, in the case of the Central Pacific) to build the thing. Also, I believe the construction standards of the line were sb-par, and lots of stuff had to be rebuilt after the line was open. The two companies were building as cheaply and quickly as possible to get a line in place so they could qualify for the land grants from Uncle Sam.
 
Back
Top