Every time I read an article in any industry publication regarding the need to improve America's bridges and roadways, and lamenting that more attention and money need be provided for this essential effort, and also complaining about how America is falling behind other industrial nations (usually China), I am instantly enraged by the failure of every author to acknowledge the "elephant-in-the-room" that everyone is aware of, but dare not speak its name. America can never be as competitive with other nations so long as we fail to address two long-standing engineering and construction practices that, by their very existence, prevent the needed projects from a) being completed in a timely fashion, b) being completed for a reasonable cost, and c) sometimes – even being undertaken. Those two practices are the high cost of labor in this country, and the regulatory nature of the government upon the construction industry.

Both of these facts will prevent our nation from ever meeting the very needs of its citizens. Labor costs are exceedingly high in this nation compared to almost every other country. There are two basic reasons for this. First, most third world countries pay their workers an obscenely low wage. There is nothing we can do about that. However, the second item – forced union wages – can be addressed. Let me be specific here. In Pennsylvania, as in most states, money for construction projects is scarce. Any effort to reduce costs should be embraced. However, in this state we have a "prevailing wage" law that requires all government projects over $25,000 be constructed through labor paid at rates set by the state at the prevailing wage. This wage is most times higher than such a contractor would normally pay his/her employees on any private project.

Our firm represents a number of municipal clients. I have bid-out numerous municipal construction projects, and each time the contractors will tell me that the wages they pay on these government-funded projects are nearly twice that of their private projects. Likewise, another way that labor costs are inflated through government action is in those locations where construction is mandated to be performed solely by union labor. How much more is the government (federal, state, and local) spending for these projects by requiring the use of union labor than by simply bidding the project openly to the lowest responsible bid? How much longer does it take for such projects to be completed due to union rules about working hours?

Philadelphia is notorious for its pro-union climate that actually is a detriment to the city. [For example,] when the Comcast center was designed, it was to be a green building to a large extent, so much so that all urinals were to be waterless. Enter the plumbers union, who sued to force Comcast to allow them to install water pipes. Likewise, [in] the Pennsylvania Convention Center, only union labor can be used to set-up and take-down presentation displays. You, as a vendor, cannot even plug in your own computer. A union electrician must do that for you – at a cost, of course.

Government regulation increases costs by increasing design costs, time-to-construction, and inspection fees, not to mention the added costs to all portions of the project where any number of constructed features have been included through government mandate, rather than through the design process and its need. Also, many times there is the requirement for redundant reviews by federal, state, and local agencies that are each looking at the same thing. In my work in Pennsylvania, and I assume in most other states, permits are required for practically every job in which earth is disturbed. The state maintains a database of endangered or threatened animals and plant species. If our project is in an area of concern, there can be as many as four different agencies of the federal and state governments that must clear our project for construction, all surrounding a single species. A large-scale land development project will require permits from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, the Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission, the County Health Department, the County Conservation District, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the local municipality, and any local utility authorities. That's 10 separate agency approvals for a single project.

If China wants to build something, how many agencies are involved? Aside from the regulatory requirements to build a project, please don't forget the regulatory climate that, many times, prevents important projects from even being constructed in the first place! Locally, in Pennsylvania, the energy industry would like to increase coal mining and to begin mining shale. However, government agencies and environmental groups block the way. The same has long been true for the prospects of drilling for oil in the [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge] or off our own coasts, for constructing new nuclear power plants, or for building new oil refineries. Again, if China wants to build a road, who's going to stop them?

I am just so sick and tired of reading articles whining and complaining that America can't keep pace with China or Canada or whoever. The deck is stacked against us in that regard. And the sad truth is that we are the ones who are both putting up the roadblocks and then complaining when we can't get through!

The sadder truth is that most engineers and construction managers know the truth but they just don't have the guts to say so. Most politicians know it as well, but also lack the courage to end these practices. If ZweigWhite considers itself a leader in this industry, I think it's about time someone wrote an article about the "elephant-in-the-room." I'm tired of reading the same old junk.

Ronald D. Jackson, P.E.