Why the Fight Over the Wall Matters


unixknight
 Share

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Seen on Facebook:

”What if Trump just fined all the people who don’t want the wall—sort of like Obama did with Obamacare?”

So, some tidbit I learned today.  If a fed employee is furloughed for more than 30 days, they can be permanently released.

30 days is coming up isn’t i?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So, some tidbit I learned today.  If a fed employee is furloughed for more than 30 days, they can be permanently released.

30 days is coming up isn’t i?

They won't do it.

Right now, the only thing blunting the Democrat's efforts to appeal to the emotion of the American people is the fact that Federal employees WILL receive the pay for the lost days.  Take that away, and there's a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, let's do a quick calculation instead.

  • A 20 ft concrete wall would need to be about 12" thick to handle the crash of a mid-sized vehicle (controlling load).
  • The TIC cost of a precast wall to be delivered and erected at all points unknown will be about $1500/yd x mileage given above = about $10B.
  • Then add piles at 8ft intervals x $2500/pile = $2.1B.
  • Underground wall to prevent tunneling (let's short hand it and call it the same price as the above ground wall.  $10B.
  • TIC = $22.1B.

 

You are missing several issues.  

First, the wall has to have a footer and foundation.   It's not going to sit on the ground.

Second, the price of the underground section of the wall isn't going to be anywhere close to the same price as the above ground wall.

Third, you aren't taking in the cost of acquiring property to build the wall.  This is a big question mark.  I have no idea, but it likely will be at least a few billion, if there aren't too many lawsuits (and trust me, several lawsuits will come out of this).  

Forth, all prototypes are to be 18-30 feet high.

Fifth, where are you getting 12" thick?   There is no way.   Specifications for the wall say that it has to withstand an hour of sledgehammer, pick axe, torch, and all battery operated tools.   I don't know where you are getting the idea that a 12" wall could do this (especially the batter operated tools), but the kind of concrete and steel that could do this with a 12" wall would be more expensive than you imply.

The prototypes for a wall vary, but the only one similar to what you are proposing (a plain concrete wall), is a lot more than 12" thick.   Here is the prototype for the concrete wall:
 

nn_jso_trumps_border_wall_protoypes_171023_1920x1080.nbcnews-ux-1080-600.jpg

I don't know the exact thickness, but I can assure you that it is a lot more than 12".   If I were to guess just by looking at it, I'd say that the upper half might be 12" and the lower half might be 4 feet. If you can find the dimensions, this would be useful.  Use the dimensions to recalculate your cost.

I don't have the exact dimensions, but visually I'd give a ball park figure that the above concrete wall is approximately 26 feet high.

To make the calculation simple, let's just say the bottom section is 12 feet high, the inclined section is 2 feet high, and the top section is 12' feet high.  The top section is 12" thick and the bottom section is 4 feet thick.   

This would calculate out to 2.31481 CY per linear foot of wall or 12,222.22 CY per mile, for just the above ground section of wall.  Using your own numbers, that's $35.82 billion for the above ground portion alone.

Sixth, I seriously doubt such as wall could be precast if it were like the one in the picture.  It might, but it wouldn't be cost effective.

Seventh, I'm willing to bet that the prices you quote are for a wall on flat ground or at least mostly flat ground.   I work in the mountains of Colorado and can assure you that a wall is going to be more expensive than the prices you quote.   Colorado has no international border of course, but the international border does cross several mountain ranges.   Some areas will be fairly flat and some areas will have mountains to cross.  

Eight, you are only taking in account the cost of the wall in one location and aren't taking in account all the geotechnical work and design that needs to be done.  You don't build the wall the same way on sand (for example) than you would on dirt or rock, mud, etc.  The design would change as the wall follows various terrains and subgrades.

There's a lot more here than that, but presumably you get the idea.

 

Quote

Again, where are you getting your number?

It was simple, but was just a very rough estimate and ball park figure.   That's why I said such a wall would cost at least $100 billion.    

What I did was to take the average cost per mile of a similar highway wall (I do mostly highway engineering for a living, but do some other engineering as well-we're getting into residential and airport work-I used to do more residential and airport work than highways), which would have been around $190 billion.  I reduced this to "more than $100 billion, since the bigger a job is, generally the lower the cost per mile.  I also reduced the cost down because a lot of the terrain (such as Texas) will be mostly flat, which isn't the case on most projects I have worked on.  

Although I believe I can come up with a good ball park figure on construction materials itself, I would have no idea on things like the cost of the property obtained through eminent domain, for example, thus my estimate isn't going to be spot on (but I still say at least $100 billion).

On thing I didn't take in account is seismic activity.  The section of the wall between San Diego California and Yuma Arizona is in a major seismic zone.   I don't know how much this affects cost since I haven't had to worry about it (Colorado does have some seismic danger, but not like the area mentioned above).  This would also increase cost, though I have no idea how much.  

I also didn't take in account that the wall is likely going to cross swamp or marshlands and rivers/creeks as well.  That will add costs.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here's my proposal:

The Dems should let Trump his $5.7 billion for wall construction, but no more.   I can assure you that there is no way that $5.7 billion is going to build the wall that he says he is going to build.  

Other than looking weak and looking like they are caving in, the Dems really don't have much to worry about the big concrete wall, if that is what they are worried about.   The reason is that there is no way in Hades that $5.7 billion is going to build that wall along the southern border.   It may help with security, but it isn't going to build that wall.  I can promise you that. 

Also, I'd be all for the fence that was in Carborendum linked in the article.   

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would it cost to say... conquer Central America down to the Panama Canal... and build the wall there?

That way all Mexicans become legal citizens (except I suppose those that illegally snuck in prior to the “border expansion”) and we build a smaller wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Fether said:

What would it cost to say... conquer Central America down to the Panama Canal... and build the wall there?

That way all Mexicans become legal citizens (except I suppose those that illegally snuck in prior to the “border expansion”) and we build a smaller wall.

It probably wouldn't cost that much.  The reason being (I have no official data on this), a majority of the people would probably willingly become American citizens.  

Conquering it likely wouldn't cost that much.   Maintaining and governing it would be much more costly.

That would also increase the population of the USA by more than half (well at least if we included all of Panama rather than just the part west of the canal).  It would also mean that approximately 40% of the US population would speak Spanish (not that there's anything wrong with that).  

You almost wouldn't need that long of a wall if you used the Panama/Colombia border.   There is no road from Colombia to Panama through the Darien Gap.  It is true that drug smugglers do cross the Darien Gap in certain locations, but they can only do it in certain areas where the rainforest and mountains are not impenetrable.  For that reason traversing the Darien Gap is dangerous, but only in the places where it is passable.   It is still a dangerous border, at least at this time.  

 

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, pam said:

Let's build a wall so that we're imprisoned within our own country.  :P   

 

You jest, but truthfully, one of the issues faced by federal law enforcement is that hunted criminals often make an effort to escape to Mexico. "Make a run for the border" so to speak. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Scott said:

You are missing several issues.  

OK.  I'm listening. -- I apologize for the length of the post.  But there was a lot of stuff to cover.  I hope you'll actually consider it.

Quote

First, the wall has to have a footer and foundation.   It's not going to sit on the ground.

The design I had in mind would essentially be a concrete sheet pile that would extend above the ground.

The piles that I spoke of would be extended above the ground as well and provide additional moment capacity.  That number may need to go up a bit considering the height.  But that would at most double the pile cost.  So, another few billion.  We're still shy of your "minimum" bid of $100B.

Quote

Second, the price of the underground section of the wall isn't going to be anywhere close to the same price as the above ground wall.

Yes, it is.  The excavation cost is nowhere near the cost of the concrete.  And the concrete design for the below ground wall does not need to be as strong as the above ground wall.  The piles take the moment.  It does not actually carry a load except to transfer the vertical load to skin friction in the soil.  This design would make the wall only subject to shear and minimal moment.  The wind load is miniscule compared to the impact of a vehicle.

Quote

Third, you aren't taking in the cost of acquiring property to build the wall.  This is a big question mark.  I have no idea, but it likely will be at least a few billion, if there aren't too many lawsuits (and trust me, several lawsuits will come out of this).  

THIS is an excellent point.  True, I did not take that into account.  But let's assume 10,000 people wanting $100,000 per parcel on average = $1B.  Even if I'm off by a factor of 10, that's only inching our way to your number.

Remember they don't need to buy the land.  They only need to buy an easement for an area of land that they aren't allowed to build on anyway.  And (while I don't agree with the practice) when there is sufficient political impetus, they will condemn the land if the landowners do not cooperate for a reasonable (or even above reasonable) market price).

Quote

Forth, all prototypes are to be 18-30 feet high.

I said 20 ft tall.  So, I'm within the range.  Obviously if you go taller, the cost will go up linearly with the height.  But what I have is adequate.

Quote

Fifth, where are you getting 12" thick?   There is no way.   Specifications for the wall say that it has to withstand an hour of sledgehammer, pick axe, torch, and all battery operated tools.   I don't know where you are getting the idea that a 12" wall could do this (especially the batter operated tools), but the kind of concrete and steel that could do this with a 12" wall would be more expensive than you imply.

Have you ever tried to hack at a concrete wall?  Not masonry.  What strength concrete do you usually use on highway construction?  3000 psi?  The concrete prices I was talking about was 5,000 psi concrete which is readily available in west Texas.  Then reinforce it per CENTCOM standards for bunkers (which are usually only 12" thick -- sometimes thinner). 

Yes, BUNKERS.

Try taking a sledge hammer to that wall for an hour.  Good luck.

Quote

The prototypes for a wall vary, but the only one similar to what you are proposing (a plain concrete wall), is a lot more than 12" thick.   Here is the prototype for the concrete wall:

Nice pictures.  But I don't know who designed them.  One of them is a steel wall.  MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE than concrete for this application.  The other is a "decorative" concrete wall.  I'm not designing for "pretty".  I'm designing for function.

Quote

 don't know the exact thickness, but I can assure you that it is a lot more than 12". 

Then they didn't design it for efficiency.  And that, again, is part of my tripling the cost for a government project.

Quote

 If I were to guess just by looking at it, I'd say that the upper half might be 12" and the lower half might be 4 feet. If you can find the dimensions, this would be useful.  Use the dimensions to recalculate your cost.

I believe I did.  You're nickel and diming your way to try to more than double the number.  We're simply not getting there.

If you have alternative costs from other information you have, then please bring them.  But these (valid) points you've brought up are minor additions.

Quote

I don't have the exact dimensions, but visually I'd give a ball park figure that the above concrete wall is approximately 26 feet high.

I'll nitpick here.  It could be 26ft high. But you see the cordoning tape?  Those are usually at OSHA standard 42" high.  Based on that as a scale (I took a ruler) it appears to be 20 ft high.

Quote

To make the calculation simple, let's just say the bottom section is 12 feet high, the inclined section is 2 feet high, and the top section is 12' feet high.  The top section is 12" thick and the bottom section is 4 feet thick.   

Again, based on the scale, the bottom portion is about 30" thick and the top is about 10" to 12" thick.  When you get that small, this scale is not accurate, especially on a diagonal axis.

But for the purposes of discussion, we'll go along with your numbers and modify at the end.

Quote

This would calculate out to 2.31481 CY per linear foot of wall or 12,222.22 CY per mile, for just the above ground section of wall.  Using your own numbers, that's $35.82 billion for the above ground portion alone.

Your calculation is off.  2.315 CY/ft x 5280 FT/Mi x 1275Mi x $1500/CY = $23.4B total. And using the volume I got based on scale, it is about half that.

Quote

Sixth, I seriously doubt such as wall could be precast if it were like the one in the picture.  It might, but it wouldn't be cost effective.

What are you talking about?  They make precast walls like that all the time.  And they are in the neighborhood of 20 to 30 feet tall.  Warehouses use them all the time.  And they are FLAT -- usually only 8" to 10" thick (just like the upper portion of the walls in your picture).

Quote

Seventh, I'm willing to bet that the prices you quote are for a wall on flat ground or at least mostly flat ground.   I work in the mountains of Colorado and can assure you that a wall is going to be more expensive than the prices you quote.   Colorado has no international border of course, but the international border does cross several mountain ranges.   Some areas will be fairly flat and some areas will have mountains to cross.

Trump has already said that they would not be building in areas where it is too impractical to build.  In those areas, they'd have an increased personnel presence.  And currently, the VAST majority of the areas without a wall are in west Texas.

Additionally, I don't concede it will be more expensive than what I was quoting based on this objection.  The main obstacle in the mountains of Colorado is the presence of rock (which would allow for a much lighter foundation design.  The obstacle in West Texas is REMOTE locations.  They have to buy or rent trailers for all the workers to live in during construction.  They have to hire cooks and custodial to take care of their functions.  They have to ship in food for everyone.  They have to ship in materials from far away and have an onsite batch plant.  They have to have on-site generators with diesel shipped in on a regular basis.  These are HUGELY expensive.  But we have ways of dealing with that here in Texas that you're not familiar with. 

Quote

Eight, you are only taking in account the cost of the wall in one location and aren't taking in account all the geotechnical work and design that needs to be done.  You don't build the wall the same way on sand (for example) than you would on dirt or rock, mud, etc.  The design would change as the wall follows various terrains and subgrades.

I have in my possession an area geotechnical study that was done for all of west Texas.  It is not supposed to be site specific, true.  But it is indicative of overall geological patterns throughout the entire portion of the state.  It is used to determine where there might be areas that they need to get site specific data and where they can use assumed values per ASCE or TxDOT or the USGS.

As I recall, the budget for this study was about $3MM.  But let's say $10MM.  Then let's say it produces an additional $20MM for site specific work in some areas.  That's not even $1B.  You're still nickel and diming in an effort to double something that is too big to consider these minor items.

Again, efficiency.  I already tripled my estimate for all these things.

Quote

There's a lot more here than that, but presumably you get the idea.

Well, apparently I don't.

Quote

It was simple, but was just a very rough estimate and ball park figure.

Yes, I know.  That's why I said all these little things you're talking about are nickel and diming.

Let me tell you about the architecture of estimating large projects.  In heavy industry, we use the number $50MM.  Years ago it ws $10MM.  But it has grown.  That is the number where we start saying,"OK, this is a big enough project that we really have to think it through."

FEL1: What we're doing here. 

  • We layout the big ticket items.  We consider the major things we need to think about.
  • We put together general specifications for the project.  We define our goals.
  • We look at potential obstacles (you mentioned land acquisition -- excellent point).  We look at scheduling issues and long lead time items (again land acquisition). 
  • This results in an "order of magnitude" estimate. 
  • WE DON'T CONSIDER MINOR ITEMS IN THIS PHASE.  IT'S NOT WORTH CONSIDERING BECAUSE THEY ARE ASSUMED TO BE MINOR.

My number (after considering government inefficiency) was about $66B (IIRC).

FEL2:  We put together what we call a "napkin sketch". 

  • We start doing all the behind the scenes stuff like legal stuff and initial permitting.
  • We do designs of the big ticket items (like the actual wall design that is to be used).
  • And we come up with a +/- 50% estimate based on any new discoveries we made while analyzing the big ticket items.

FEL3:  We actually have a design.

  • Here we design the thing with some assumed information, as if it were true.
  • We get surveys and geotechnical information.
  • We get vendors and suppliers lined up.
  • We decide on all the remaining information we need to finish the project.
  • We have a +30% / -15% estimate (for this phase, the range will vary depending on several variables -- the completeness of the information and the type of project, etc.)

Detailed Design:  We actually have a design.

  • We take the FEL3 design and begin reviewing it for compliance with all the complete information we now have or are soon expecting.
  • We make changes to the design.
  • We coordinate between disciplines to make sure there aren't interferences or design clashes between one group and another.
  • Send it out for bid.

Then it goes to construction.

I gave you a FEL1 number and all your complaints were essentially:  You don't have all the items for detailed design included.  Well, you're right.  I don't. And?

Quote

  What I did was to take the average cost per mile of a similar highway wall (I do mostly highway engineering for a living, but do some other engineering as well-we're getting into residential and airport work-I used to do more residential and airport work than highways), which would have been around $190 billion.  I reduced this to "more than $100 billion, since the bigger a job is, generally the lower the cost per mile.  I also reduced the cost down because a lot of the terrain (such as Texas) will be mostly flat, which isn't the case on most projects I have worked on.  

Although I believe I can come up with a good ball park figure on construction materials itself, I would have no idea on things like the cost of the property obtained through eminent domain, for example, thus my estimate isn't going to be spot on (but I still say at least $100 billion).

I worked on (at the time) the biggest (most expensive) public works project in history I-15/215 reconstuction in the late 90s.  And, yes, it was expensive.  But you're talking about a system of construction that is inherently over-designed and highly inefficient.

Not only that, but that's a WHOLE LOT of stuff that simply doesn't apply to this wall construction project.

1. People have NO CONCEPT of how much it costs to move dirt around.  Every overpass/underpass has a LOT of earthwork.  And that generally means lots of retaining walls.  And we're talking about retaining walls that carry a LOT more load than this border wall.

2. Bridges are HECKA expensive.  Every overpass is another bridge.

3. LOTS of phases of construction to avoid interrupting traffic flow any more than is necessary.  We essentially had to build the thing three times so we would allow for traffic flow.  We build the new detours.  Then we have intermediate construction.  Then we have the final construction.  And all the other stuff has to be demolished and disposed of.

4. TONS of geotechnical work that simply doesn't apply to the wall.  And I'm not only talking about a geotechnical study.  I'm talking about geotechnical mechanisms that simply won't be used on the wall.  One thing I remember was wick drains.  Have you used them?  As a highway engineer, you probably have.  That really changes construction.  This one thing may be a minor item, but there are many such minor items that have ripple effects for earthwork and construction phasing.

Quote

On thing I didn't take in account is seismic activity.  The section of the wall between San Diego California and Yuma Arizona is in a major seismic zone.   I don't know how much this affects cost since I haven't had to worry about it (Colorado does have some seismic danger, but not like the area mentioned above).  This would also increase cost, though I have no idea how much.  

I also didn't take in account that the wall is likely going to cross swamp or marshlands and rivers/creeks as well.  That will add costs.

The Southern California Border is already the area with the most complete border wall.  Not much needs to be done there.

Also, along the border, the load is low enough that I don't know if it would control the design.  The sledge hammer load will probably be the controlling factor.  Then once you get out into the east desert areas (not even Arizona yet) we have much lower seismic loads.

This really is a MINOR item.

Quote

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here's my proposal:

The Dems should let Trump his $5.7 billion for wall construction, but no more.   I can assure you that there is no way that $5.7 billion is going to build the wall that he says he is going to build.  

To be honest, I don't know how much of the wall he has proposed to build with this $5.7B.  I haven't heard.  Does anyone have a source for that?

Quote

Other than looking weak and looking like they are caving in, the Dems really don't have much to worry about the big concrete wall, if that is what they are worried about.   The reason is that there is no way in Hades that $5.7 billion is going to build that wall along the southern border.   It may help with security, but it isn't going to build that wall.  I can promise you that. 

Also, I'd be all for the fence that was in Carborendum linked in the article.   

I don't think a "fence" like a chain link fence will curb much without personnel presence.  It is only a supplement, not an answer.

However a slotted sheet pile like what we have in many places already may be more cost effective.  But it wouldn't stand up to a blow torch.  The material cost would be about $1000 per foot = $6.7B.  But the installation cost?  I'm not sure about the installation cost or delivery cost out there.  Even if we triple it for TIC, that's still only about $20B.  I guess it wouldn't be all that much cheaper after all.

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

OK.  I'm listening. -- I apologize for the length of the post.  But there was a lot of stuff to cover.  I hope you'll actually consider it.

The design I had in mind would essentially be a concrete sheet pile that would extend above the ground.

The piles that I spoke of would be extended above the ground as well and provide additional moment capacity.  That number may need to go up a bit considering the height.  But that would at most double the pile cost.  So, another few billion.  We're still shy of your "minimum" bid of $100B.

Yes, it is.  The excavation cost is nowhere near the cost of the concrete.  And the concrete design for the below ground wall does not need to be as strong as the above ground wall.  The piles take the moment.  It does not actually carry a load except to transfer the vertical load to skin friction in the soil.  This design would make the wall only subject to shear and minimal moment.  The wind load is miniscule compared to the impact of a vehicle.

THIS is an excellent point.  True, I did not take that into account.  But let's assume 10,000 people wanting $100,000 per parcel on average = $1B.  Even if I'm off by a factor of 10, that's only inching our way to your number.

Remember they don't need to buy the land.  They only need to buy an easement for an area of land that they aren't allowed to build on anyway.  And (while I don't agree with the practice) when there is sufficient political impetus, they will condemn the land if the landowners do not cooperate for a reasonable (or even above reasonable) market price).

I said 20 ft tall.  So, I'm within the range.  Obviously if you go taller, the cost will go up linearly with the height.  But what I have is adequate.

Have you ever tried to hack at a concrete wall?  Not masonry.  What strength concrete do you usually use on highway construction?  3000 psi?  The concrete prices I was talking about was 5,000 psi concrete which is readily available in west Texas.  Then reinforce it per CENTCOM standards for bunkers (which are usually only 12" thick -- sometimes thinner). 

Yes, BUNKERS.

Try taking a sledge hammer to that wall for an hour.  Good luck.

Nice pictures.  But I don't know who designed them.  One of them is a steel wall.  MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE than concrete for this application.  The other is a "decorative" concrete wall.  I'm not designing for "pretty".  I'm designing for function.

Then they didn't design it for efficiency.  And that, again, is part of my tripling the cost for a government project.

I believe I did.  You're nickel and diming your way to try to more than double the number.  We're simply not getting there.

If you have alternative costs from other information you have, then please bring them.  But these (valid) points you've brought up are minor additions.

I'll nitpick here.  It could be 26ft high. But you see the cordoning tape?  Those are usually at OSHA standard 42" high.  Based on that as a scale (I took a ruler) it appears to be 20 ft high.

Again, based on the scale, the bottom portion is about 30" thick and the top is about 10" to 12" thick.  When you get that small, this scale is not accurate, especially on a diagonal axis.

But for the purposes of discussion, we'll go along with your numbers and modify at the end.

Your calculation is off.  2.315 CY/ft x 5280 FT/Mi x 1275Mi x $1500/CY = $23.4B total. And using the volume I got based on scale, it is about half that.

What are you talking about?  They make precast walls like that all the time.  And they are in the neighborhood of 20 to 30 feet tall.  Warehouses use them all the time.  And they are FLAT -- usually only 8" to 10" thick (just like the upper portion of the walls in your picture).

Trump has already said that they would not be building in areas where it is too impractical to build.  In those areas, they'd have an increased personnel presence.  And currently, the VAST majority of the areas without a wall are in west Texas.

Additionally, I don't concede it will be more expensive than what I was quoting based on this objection.  The main obstacle in the mountains of Colorado is the presence of rock (which would allow for a much lighter foundation design.  The obstacle in West Texas is REMOTE locations.  They have to buy or rent trailers for all the workers to live in during construction.  They have to hire cooks and custodial to take care of their functions.  They have to ship in food for everyone.  They have to ship in materials from far away and have an onsite batch plant.  They have to have on-site generators with diesel shipped in on a regular basis.  These are HUGELY expensive.  But we have ways of dealing with that here in Texas that you're not familiar with. 

I have in my possession an area geotechnical study that was done for all of west Texas.  It is not supposed to be site specific, true.  But it is indicative of overall geological patterns throughout the entire portion of the state.  It is used to determine where there might be areas that they need to get site specific data and where they can use assumed values per ASCE or TxDOT or the USGS.

As I recall, the budget for this study was about $3MM.  But let's say $10MM.  Then let's say it produces an additional $20MM for site specific work in some areas.  That's not even $1B.  You're still nickel and diming in an effort to double something that is too big to consider these minor items.

Again, efficiency.  I already tripled my estimate for all these things.

Well, apparently I don't.

Yes, I know.  That's why I said all these little things you're talking about are nickel and diming.

Let me tell you about the architecture of estimating large projects.  In heavy industry, we use the number $50MM.  Years ago it ws $10MM.  But it has grown.  That is the number where we start saying,"OK, this is a big enough project that we really have to think it through."

FEL1: What we're doing here. 

  • We layout the big ticket items.  We consider the major things we need to think about.
  • We put together general specifications for the project.  We define our goals.
  • We look at potential obstacles (you mentioned land acquisition -- excellent point).  We look at scheduling issues and long lead time items (again land acquisition). 
  • This results in an "order of magnitude" estimate. 
  • WE DON'T CONSIDER MINOR ITEMS IN THIS PHASE.  IT'S NOT WORTH CONSIDERING BECAUSE THEY ARE ASSUMED TO BE MINOR.

My number (after considering government inefficiency) was about $66B (IIRC).

FEL2:  We put together what we call a "napkin sketch". 

  • We start doing all the behind the scenes stuff like legal stuff and initial permitting.
  • We do designs of the big ticket items (like the actual wall design that is to be used).
  • And we come up with a +/- 50% estimate based on any new discoveries we made while analyzing the big ticket items.

FEL3:  We actually have a design.

  • Here we design the thing with some assumed information, as if it were true.
  • We get surveys and geotechnical information.
  • We get vendors and suppliers lined up.
  • We decide on all the remaining information we need to finish the project.
  • We have a +30% / -15% estimate (for this phase, the range will vary depending on several variables -- the completeness of the information and the type of project, etc.)

Detailed Design:  We actually have a design.

  • We take the FEL3 design and begin reviewing it for compliance with all the complete information we now have or are soon expecting.
  • We make changes to the design.
  • We coordinate between disciplines to make sure there aren't interferences or design clashes between one group and another.
  • Send it out for bid.

Then it goes to construction.

I gave you a FEL1 number and all your complaints were essentially:  You don't have all the items for detailed design included.  Well, you're right.  I don't. And?

I worked on (at the time) the biggest (most expensive) public works project in history I-15/215 reconstuction in the late 90s.  And, yes, it was expensive.  But you're talking about a system of construction that is inherently over-designed and highly inefficient.

Not only that, but that's a WHOLE LOT of stuff that simply doesn't apply to this wall construction project.

1. People have NO CONCEPT of how much it costs to move dirt around.  Every overpass/underpass has a LOT of earthwork.  And that generally means lots of retaining walls.  And we're talking about retaining walls that carry a LOT more load than this border wall.

2. Bridges are HECKA expensive.  Every overpass is another bridge.

3. LOTS of phases of construction to avoid interrupting traffic flow any more than is necessary.  We essentially had to build the thing three times so we would allow for traffic flow.  We build the new detours.  Then we have intermediate construction.  Then we have the final construction.  And all the other stuff has to be demolished and disposed of.

4. TONS of geotechnical work that simply doesn't apply to the wall.  And I'm not only talking about a geotechnical study.  I'm talking about geotechnical mechanisms that simply won't be used on the wall.  One thing I remember was wick drains.  Have you used them?  As a highway engineer, you probably have.  That really changes construction.  This one thing may be a minor item, but there are many such minor items that have ripple effects for earthwork and construction phasing.

The Southern California Border is already the area with the most complete border wall.  Not much needs to be done there.

Also, along the border, the load is low enough that I don't know if it would control the design.  The sledge hammer load will probably be the controlling factor.  Then once you get out into the east desert areas (not even Arizona yet) we have much lower seismic loads.

This really is a MINOR item.

To be honest, I don't know how much of the wall he has proposed to build with this $5.7B.  I haven't heard.  Does anyone have a source for that?

I don't think a "fence" like a chain link fence will curb much without personnel presence.  It is only a supplement, not an answer.

However a slotted sheet pile like what we have in many places already may be more cost effective.  But it wouldn't stand up to a blow torch.  The material cost would be about $1000 per foot = $6.7B.  But the installation cost?  I'm not sure about the installation cost or delivery cost out there.  Even if we triple it for TIC, that's still only about $20B.  I guess it wouldn't be all that much cheaper after all.

 

Dude, this post is so long I thought you turned into @JohnsonJones!!!!

(just playing guys!) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Dude, this post is so long I thought you turned into @JohnsonJones!!!!

(just playing guys!) 

Yeah, I know.  But this is how things go.  We try to do a point-for-point response.  And with each iteration, it gets bigger and bigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
Just now, Carborendum said:

Yeah, I know.  But this is how things go.  We try to do a point-for-point response.  And with each iteration, it gets bigger and bigger.

Brevity is the soul of wit and intelligence my friend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MormonGator., as one who lives in a compound, presumably with a wall and moat, what's your perspective on the effectiveness of walls taking into account @mirkwood's apparent recent unauthorised penetration to take photos of your Kiss storage collection?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
8 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

@MormonGator., as one who lives in a compound, presumably with a wall and moat, what's your perspective on the effectiveness of walls taking into account @mirkwood's apparent recent unauthorised penetration to take photos of your Kiss storage collection?

Any words I can say about @mirkwood are not appropriate for a religious forum.  

(just a joke! He's a good friend of mine and I have nothing but respect for him) 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I hope you'll actually consider it.

I will. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The design I had in mind would essentially be a concrete sheet pile that would extend above the ground.

Wouldn't it still have to sit on a footer?   What would the dimension of the footer be?

 

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, it is.  The excavation cost is nowhere near the cost of the concrete.   .  

Quote

And the concrete design for the below ground wall does not need to be as strong as the above ground wall.

As far as excavation cost, we're both probably showing our bias due to geographic location.  It sounds like you are from Texas?   If so, unless you are building a road/wall though Big Bend, the Davis Mountains, or Guadalupes, would it be correct to say that you don't have to deal with rock excavation?

Almost all of my projects and all of them that have had walls are in the Rocky Mountains.   We usually plan for $100 per CY for rock excavation and $25 per CY for unclassified excavation.  Obviously, it's going to be cheaper in most of Texas.    The average of where the wall would be would likely be between the two (Texas and the Rocky Mountains).

Anyway, if you are curious, here are some photos of the roads and projects that I helped manage in recent years.   All of them had walls.  (I am not on any project right now).  The dates are the dates that I was on the projects.

US 35 Big Thompson Canyon; 11/2017 to 10/2018:

https://www.google.com/search?q=us+34+big+thompson+canyon&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilw4LWqPXfAhVYIDQIHZSwD50Q_AUIECgD&biw=1366&bih=626

SH 7 Peak to Peak; 10/2018 to 12/2018:

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=626&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=N7hAXKq7LqLs9APzqZn4Aw&q=sh+7+peak+to+peak+highway&oq=sh+7+peak+to+peak+highway&gs_l=img.3...37167.48477..48813...1.0..0.418.3318.0j25j4-1......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......35i39j0j0i67j0i30j0i5i30j0i8i30j0i24.TZgvSUP24_Q

SH 9 Frisco to Breckenridge; 9/2016  to 11/2017:

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=626&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=yrhAXKb6K92_0PEPm_W30Aw&q=state+highway+9+frisco+to+breckenridge&oq=state+highway+9+frisco+to+breckenridge&gs_l=img.3...5627.18631..18803...8.0..0.155.4280.0j36......1....1..gws-wiz-img.j2lPzqG1PYM

I-70 Vail Pass; 5/2016 to 9/2016:

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=626&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=3rhAXNKBLOzA0PEPscaemAI&q=I+70+Vail+pass+to+frisco&oq=I+70+Vail+pass+to+frisco&gs_l=img.3...48252.54976..55283...0.0..0.137.2867.0j24......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......35i39j0j0i67j0i8i30j0i24.Q1D_i9D98cE

So yes, there will be some different biases due to geographic location between us when cost comes into play.   Presumably, the cost will be somewhere between what we're both used to.

As far as the concrete strength goes, unless we are putting caissons in, the strength of the concrete below ground is at least as strong as the part above ground.

Also, as far as excavation goes, you wouldn't excavate just the width of the wall; you would need to excavate a few feet on either side. 

PS, I did find the specification for how far the wall has to be underground.  It is six feet:

borderspecs.jpg?itok=19H27M3T

30 feet is considered ideal.   Here are some more specs:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/national/border-wall-prototypes/?utm_term=.db01b0e9afaf

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Remember they don't need to buy the land.  They only need to buy an easement for an area of land that they aren't allowed to build on anyway.  

That's not how it works here.  Is that really how it is in Texas?

Unless on Federal or State Lands (State Parks, SITLA, Forest Service, BLM, National Parks, etc.) easements are for temporary impact and land that is permanently impacted is purchased.

For example, if a road embankment or wall went all the way to the Highway ROW (Right of Way), you would need an easement because you would have get on and impact someones land to build the embankment or wall.    The same is true for a bridge detour.   If a detour was needed while you build a bridge and it had to be on someone else's land, you would need an easement.   You pay them to use the land and pay them for the impacts to the land, but after the project you restore the land as much as possible and return the land to the land owner.

if any permanent structure and including roadway embankment (and obviously a wall) outside the ROW and on someone's land, you have to buy the land, not just have an easement.    

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What strength concrete do you usually use on highway construction?  3000 psi?  

Depending on application, usually 4500 psi, but some is 3000, some 4000, and some higher than 4500.   It's usually 4500 though.  

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Try taking a sledge hammer to that wall for an hour.  Good luck.

I agree about the sledge hammer.  I was thinking of something like a concrete cutting saw.   

(to be continued in next post)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Carborendum and @Scott, reading your posts makes me smarter, so thanks.

One observation, @Carborendum, is that I don’t think there would be much need for eminent domain proceedings.  Build the wall on public lands and private lands where landowners want it, leave gaps where the landowners don’t, and let ‘em deal with the highway of human traffickers and drug runners that will appear in their backyards.  Then hold the landowners strictly liable for any injuries and deaths of immigrants, and environmental issues, that occur on their land as a result of all the new human activity.  Give it a couple years, and most of the holdout landowners will eventually come back to the feds begging for a wall.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Nice pictures.  But I don't know who designed them.  One of them is a steel wall.  MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE than concrete for this application.  The other is a "decorative" concrete wall.  I'm not designing for "pretty".  I'm designing for function.

(Continued from previous post)

According to Trump's specifications, it has to be pretty/aesthetically pleasing.  

Quote

What are you talking about?  They make precast walls like that all the time.  And they are in the neighborhood of 20 to 30 feet tall.  Warehouses use them all the time.  And they are FLAT -- usually only 8" to 10" thick (just like the upper portion of the walls in your picture).

Maybe they do, but I have never seen one that big (like the one in the picture) and for one that requires a footer.   Warehouses may use them, but warehouses are built on a flat foundation or subgrade.   Even if you could place ones that big (I have never seen it done), making the subrgrade flat would not be practical in many places.   How would you propose this happening.  

Quote

The obstacle in West Texas is REMOTE locations.  They have to buy or rent trailers for all the workers to live in during construction.  They have to hire cooks and custodial to take care of their functions.  They have to ship in food for everyone.  They have to ship in materials from far away and have an onsite batch plant.  They have to have on-site generators with diesel shipped in on a regular basis.  These are HUGELY expensive.  But we have ways of dealing with that here in Texas that you're not familiar with. 

I have in my possession an area geotechnical study that was done for all of west Texas.  It is not supposed to be site specific, true.  But it is indicative of overall geological patterns throughout the entire portion of the state.  It is used to determine where there might be areas that they need to get site specific data and where they can use assumed values per ASCE or TxDOT or the USGS.

The border in most of New Mexico and Arizona is also similarly remote.

It would be interesting to see that geotechnical study too.   

Quote

As I recall, the budget for this study was about $3MM.  But let's say $10MM.  Then let's say it produces an additional $20MM for site specific work in some areas.  That's not even $1B.  You're still nickel and diming in an effort to double something that is too big to consider these minor items.

I don't doubt that your figures are accurate. Geotechical engineering isn't a one time thing though.  It will need to be continuous throughout the project.

As far as nickle and diming, it was just an example of a cost that might be overlooked.   There are many.  

Quote

I worked on (at the time) the biggest (most expensive) public works project in history I-15/215 reconstuction in the late 90s.  And, yes, it was expensive.  But you're talking about a system of construction that is inherently over-designed and highly inefficient.

Just a side note, but in my opinion a lot of highways are underdesigned.  Building them to last is more cost effective, but that's a whole new topic.

Quote

1. People have NO CONCEPT of how much it costs to move dirt around.  Every overpass/underpass has a LOT of earthwork.  And that generally means lots of retaining walls.  And we're talking about retaining walls that carry a LOT more load than this border wall.

2. Bridges are HECKA expensive.  Every overpass is another bridge.

3. LOTS of phases of construction to avoid interrupting traffic flow any more than is necessary.  We essentially had to build the thing three times so we would allow for traffic flow.  We build the new detours.  Then we have intermediate construction.  Then we have the final construction.  And all the other stuff has to be demolished and disposed of.

I agree with all of the above.

Quote

4. TONS of geotechnical work that simply doesn't apply to the wall.  And I'm not only talking about a geotechnical study.  I'm talking about geotechnical mechanisms that simply won't be used on the wall.  One thing I remember was wick drains.  Have you used them?  As a highway engineer, you probably have.  That really changes construction.  This one thing may be a minor item, but there are many such minor items that have ripple effects for earthwork and construction phasing.

Yes, I have used wick drains.   Usually only for shalely areas, so not that often.  Most of our rock is granite and metamorphics, but with some areas of limestone, shale, and sandstone. 

Quote

To be honest, I don't know how much of the wall he has proposed to build with this $5.7B.  I haven't heard.  Does anyone have a source for that?

Me neither and I don't know.   I don't have any idea where the $5.7 billion figure comes from (other than it is what Trump is asking for) and what it is supposed to cover.

Quote

I don't think a "fence" like a chain link fence will curb much without personnel presence.  It is only a supplement, not an answer.

You would be surprised how much a fence can stop.  I was in the military.   Constantina wire will stop a tank.  Or a bulldozer.  It won't stop a blow torch or backhoe though.  

Quote

However a slotted sheet pile like what we have in many places already may be more cost effective.  But it wouldn't stand up to a blow torch.  

 

Agreed.

Anyway, the $100 billion (minimum) would be for a wall along the entire border, which isn't in the plans right now.   I still say that putting a wall, or at least the type of wall that Trump has talked about (impregnable) will cost more than $100 billion.   We'll see.   

Thanks for the discussion.   It has been interesting.

I guess it comes down to how big of an issue illegal immigration is to you and what it is worth to put an end to it.

To me it is an issue, but not a gigantic one in the grand scheme of things.   Illegal immigration has many negatives, but several positives as well.   I still think that people should migrate here legally.   

Anyway, one more thing.   I'm just curious rather than arguing.  

I used to do jobs for the private industry and now I do a lot for the government (though I don't work for them directly).   It sounds like you have done both too.

In my experience, government jobs are actually less costly for items with the same specifications as the private industry, though public perception is the exact opposite.   My perception was the same as yours before I started working in the industry.  

From reading your post it seems as if your experience is the opposite of mine.  Why do you think that is?   I'm just curious rather than arguing.  

I do agree however that government projects have more specifications (Labor, construction, EEO, etc.) and can be more expensive that way. 

From my experience though, the government jobs usually worked out to be cheaper (per item or mile) than those that were private, but with similar specifications.

Here are reasons I can think of:

Government projects are usually bigger which usually bring item cost down.

By law, government projects have to take the low bids (even if they know another contractor is better). 

Government jobs carry less risk in many ways since you are less likely to get sued and the government you are working for isn't likely to go bankrupt.

I'm just curious about your experience in the matter.   I used to think the same as you, but my perception has changed over the 18 years I have worked in the industry.   If you want to, feel free to share your thoughts.  

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share