Originally Posted by
TKshreve
DetroitPlanner -
Question for you. I have always deliberated over the question of economical vs. quality when considering road work. I could rant and rave about the productivity levels of these companies that seem to win bids on this work [[like leaving barrels up for six months without one lick of work being completed), but we can bitch about that another time: :p
So take for instance the junction of I696 + I 94. They replaced this roughly three years ago I think. They spent a good deal of time on it, put an extra deep pour into it and the quality is superb. It was much needed, and it seems to be holding quite well. I undoubtedly agree that great workmanship and funding should go into these connecting spots as they are subject to all sorts of intangibles regarding depreciation.
However, if we are looking at the raw straightaways and the everyday entrances/exits to these freeways, it seems the status quo is to slap down a coat of asphalt and revisit in 4-5 years.
Could you shed some light into the thought process of the state and their vendors regarding the quality vs. economical thought process.
Are we talking about simple job-security for companies like Posen and such, or is this really in effect the best way to go about managing our roads.
Construction is an every season thing, and it's F#$%^&* an absolute headache. Why couldn't they do a thorough job once every 15-20 years and take the higher ticket today, opposed to coming back year after year, and making everybody's commute that much more annoying.