Let us now recap the process by which a major bridge project is built, remem- bering the important word major. The word refers in part to cost but also to environmental effects. A small bridge with significant effects on a stream
should undergo full environmental reviews and be labeled “major,” while a larger and more expensive overpass on an established highway alignment in a paved-over setting would perhaps (there are other considerations) be exempted from environmental review.
Viewing the delivery of a major project, most observers will have simi- lar reactions: it takes a very long time. A remarkably large portion of the effort (time and expense) goes into scoping, preliminary design, and environ- mental review stages. Projects are prone to cost overruns. Yet this painstak- ing attention to process has brought the United States many advantages.
Table 10.1. Stages in a Major Public Projects in the United States Infrastructure Type (new build,
expansion, or replacement) Bridge Highway
% of % of
Project Project
Stage Conclusion of the Stage Years Cost Cost 1. Initiation Acceptance of proposal n.a.
(to begin scoping) 2. Scoping Listing of project on state
Transportation Improvement 1–2 10.6* 18.2*
Program
3. Basic Design Final Design Report and 2–10
& Environ. Final EIS; Record of Decision Review
4. Detailed Plans, Specifications & 2–3 6.7** 6.7**
Design & Estimates (PS&E), rights- 1.3*** 3.4***
Agreements of-way, utility relocations, permits
5. Bidding & Execution of contract 0.5 0.1 0.1 Contracting
6. Construction Completion and approval of 2–5 81.3 71.6 project
Totals 7.5– 100.0 100.0
20.5
Sources: Oregon Department of Transportation and specific NYS DoT projects. Cost data courtesy of Oregon DoT, provided courtesy of Bruce V. Johnson, P.E.
*Overall planning & design, not including detailed engineering design
**Construction engineering (detailed design)
***RoW and utility relocation
Without such careful oversight, the country would surely have many expensive on-the-ground projects that are causes of regret. The long time- line and extensive review in the delivery process give opportunities for sec- ond thoughts—for altering, scaling back, or abandoning the project. There are fewer white elephants than there would have been without such review.
The careful review has also, we assume, reduced the proportions of the natu- ral landscape covered with artificial surfaces. Fine adjustments in alignment and structure have avoided harm to sensitive lands and ecosystems, preserved rare habitats, saved historic structures, and helped make cities more livable.
This environmental success has come, however, at a cost, and not just the direct costs of the projects themselves. Lengthy review does forestall many harmful indirect consequences, but can also cause others. Consider the lists of projects on transportation improvement programs. These are of given length, because they are constrained by the available budget. As infra- structure projects become more expensive, but overall public works budgets do not grow, the lists necessarily become shorter: from the tail end of each list, projects have to be dropped.
Nor is it always the case that the no-build option helps the environ- ment. At Kosciuszko Bridge, slow traffic spews pollutant into New York City’s air, possibly more so than fast traffic, so the wait for the new bridge may in itself be causing environmental harm, while wasting millions of travel-hours. What is more, bridges tend to be bottlenecks because (other things being equal) road construction alongside a gap is less costly than construction across it. Tollbooths also cause bottlenecks. Depending on the site, a new bridge can improve the environment by reducing bottlenecks and hence reducing durations of car operation. When well positioned in a dense urban area, and well endowed with pedestrian and bike lanes, the bridge can also encourage non-motorized travel.
We must not forget that questions about project delivery gain spe- cial urgency when the United States’ economy grows more slowly than its competitors’. China in particular comes to mind. Sometimes with disastrous environmental sacrifices, China is building roads, railways, great expositions, and new cities at a rapid clip. The Chinese people and their natural environ- ments will experience the harms that this haste brings. Americans should not give up on the transparency and public involvement that the NEPA process launched. Nor should Americans compromise on careful legal pro- cesses in land acquisition, nor impose top-down centralized control over municipalities and utilities.
Yet, without sacrificing the values that this careful project delivery process has brought, we should also seek ways to improve it. At a time when national infrastructure is deteriorating and America must continue to compete in the world, it is important to ask whether project delivery can
be made more efficient, without net loss to urban environments, natural environments, and the economy.