(KY) Choice of asphalt over concrete deals with governor's donations
Sherman L. Cahal
AT A GLANCE
The issue: Should concrete or asphalt be used to resurface a section
of Interstate 75?
The arguments: A state engineer said concrete would be about $1.1
million cheaper. But state Highway Commissioner Marc Williams chose
asphalt on grounds that it has other advantages, including lower
maintenance costs.
The players: A partnership that includes two of Gov. Ernie Fletcher's
biggest donors got the $25 million contract. The partnership was the
only bidder.
--
Decision paved way to work for Fletcher donors
Asphalt chosen for I-75 project
By Tom Loftus
tlo...@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal
Saturday, March 17, 2007
FRANKFORT, Ky. - Two of the biggest donors to Gov. Ernie Fletcher's re-
election campaign were beneficiaries last year of a state Highway
Department decision to use asphalt to rebuild a stretch of Interstate
75 in Lexington -- instead of the less-expensive concrete recommended
by a staff engineer.
"The concrete alternate was shown to be 23.82 percent cheaper on
initial cost and 25.53 percent less on life-cycle cost,"
transportation engineer Paul Looney said in a memo last June that was
obtained by The Courier-Journal through the Kentucky Open Records
Act.
That would have shaved about $1.1 million from the estimated $6
million cost of asphalt, according to Looney's analysis. The total
amount of the contract was $25 million.
But state Highway Commissioner Marc Williams, who has final say over
such decisions, said in an interview that Looney's cost analysis was
just one factor in this case. And, he said, it did not outweigh other
factors -- including higher maintenance costs for concrete and
problems with concrete projects in recent years.
L-M Asphalt Partners of Lexington is the contractor for the project,
which involves resurfacing I-75 from the North Elkhorn Creek Bridge to
just south of the Bryan Station Road underpass.
According to Highway Department records, L-M Asphalt is a partnership
of two Lexington companies -- L-M Holdings, which is headed by
Lexington asphalt contractor Leonard Lawson; and CR Holding, a wholly
owned subsidiary of the Lexington road-building company Central Rock
Mineral Co., whose chairman is William Sturgill of Lexington.
A Courier-Journal analysis of campaign finance records shows that
Lawson's road-building interests and Central Rock are among the
largest contributors to Fletcher's re-election campaign.
Lawson, his immediate family, employees and officials of his and his
son's various companies and their families contributed at least
$42,500 to the Republican governor's campaign last summer. People
employed by or affiliated with Central Rock and their immediate family
members gave at least $24,000.
Lawson and his son, Steve, director of L-M Holdings, did not return
phone calls.
David Curry, executive vice president of Central Rock, declined to
comment.
State records obtained by The Courier-Journal show that the state
auditor's office asked the Highway Department earlier this month for a
"list of concrete projects."
Jeff Derouen, a spokesman for the office, said auditors noticed during
a required audit that the department had changed its policy for
selecting the type of pavement to be used in a given project. "We're
expanding our audit to see what this means," Derouen said.
Copies of department policies show that the change, implemented in
early 2006, transferred primary authority for selecting pavement types
from a six-member committee to the highway commissioner.
Williams, the commissioner, said political contributions play no role
in department decisions. He said many individuals affiliated with
asphalt contractors probably contributed to Fletcher's campaign
because the state had record road construction year last year, with $1
billion in work.
As for the advantages of asphalt, he said that among other things the
state has experienced problems with poor drainage beneath concrete
surfaces in recent years, causing them to deteriorate and require
costly maintenance.
"Until we understand why that's happening, I have a difficult time
making a multimillion-dollar pavement decision -- particularly on our
interstate highways -- with something that we hope we might get right
this time," Williams said. "My challenge to the concrete industry is
to improve their product."
But Jim Render, chairman of the Kentucky Concrete Pavement
Association, said he was "shocked" by the decision to exclude concrete
from consideration for the project.
Render disputed Williams' characterization of concrete's quality and
the failure of the surface on recent projects.
"Concrete and asphalt each have their own advantages," he said. "We're
not saying our product is best in every application. We're just asking
for consideration for work when the engineering shows it makes sense
-- as it did in this case."
In his memo, Looney said he gave his cost estimate to the department
team evaluating the project. It said team members agreed that if the
state advertised the job for asphalt "there would most likely be only
one bidder" and that lack of competition would result in a high bid.
But Looney wrote that the team leader Ray Polly "stated that the
decision had been made at the previous project meeting to use asphalt
pavement and that no further discussion was necessary."
The state sought bids for the job as an asphalt project on July 21 and
did get only one bidder -- $25 million from L-M Asphalt Partners.
The Courier-Journal's analysis of the project shows this sequence of
events:
On May 17, 2006, the Highway Department's team for the I-75 project
met. Looney did not attend. Minutes of the meeting say asphalt was
selected because the project could be done faster than if concrete
were used and would better meet the need to put down the road surface
in partial sections.
There is no mention in the minutes of cost differences.
On the morning of June 8, 2006, Looney sent Williams an e-mail saying
the analysis supporting the project team recommendation was
incomplete.
He provided his own analysis, which showed the initial cost for
concrete would be $4.9 million -- about 24 percent cheaper than the
more than $6 million for asphalt. His analysis of the cost over the 40-
year life of the project showed additional savings.
"As you can see, the concrete alternate is substantially less on both
initial and life-cycle cost," Looney wrote.
He said the strategy proposed for work on this project allowed "either
concrete or asphalt pavement with similar ease." And he said he did
not believe there was a time savings with either surface.
"This project appears to be a very good candidate for either concrete
pavement or alternate bidding should you choose," he wrote.
But Polly, who was copied on the e-mail, replied that the reasons for
selecting asphalt were discussed at the May 17 meeting. "The project
is scheduled for a July 21, 2006, letting, and plans are currently
being developed according to the decisions made at the May 17th
meeting," Polly told Looney. "We need to accept that and move on with
getting the project ready for letting."
The project team also met on June 8. Minutes of the meeting reflect
discussion of other matters -- and no mention of the concrete-versus-
asphalt issue.
However, the day after the meeting Looney wrote a memo to the file
saying he had presented his cost analysis showing concrete would be
substantially cheaper.
Looney said in the memo that the "general consensus" at the June 8
meeting was that advertising for asphalt bidders would produce only
one bid, and that Chief District Engineer Bob Sturgeon said he didn't
care which pavement type was used as long as the project could be
advertised in July.
"Ray Polly then stated that the decision had been made at the previous
project meeting to use asphalt pavement and that no further discussion
was necessary," Looney wrote.
On June 28 Williams gave final approval to use asphalt, according to
department records.
A letter the department sent to federal officials, seeking approval of
the final project design, said asphalt was picked over concrete "due
to maintenance of traffic issues, project phasing issues and the fact
that this area is only 1½ miles long and bounded on all sides of the
interchange by asphalt."
In an e-mail he sent to his staff earlier this month, Williams said
this same stretch of I-75 was repaired using concrete under a
"multimillion dollar contract" in 2005 and turned out to be a
"complete failure."
Williams' e-mail also complained of other concrete projects that
failed.
"The issue is NOT about how many contractors get an opportunity to be
selected for work they bid on," he wrote. "The problem is their
product has lately been shown to be inferior in how it has been
applied in Kentucky and until their industry can better address these
problems this is going to be their major obstacle!!!"
In an interview last night, Looney said he stood by his cost analysis
and declined to comment further.
bill
learn an American road project, for once, will not be going to the
lowest bidder. We have an Interstate highway system in much of this
country that LOOKS like it's gone to the people who can do it
cheapest.
Sherman L. Cahal
And waste taxpayers money? The only instance of the drainage issue has
thus far been on the 2 mile concrete pavement on Interstate 75 in
Lexington -- which was replaced with asphalt. The concrete was laid in
the early 1980s and the base was not properly applied -- hence the
drainage problems that slowly eroded the base of the pavement. It has
_nothing_ to do with long-term vitality of concrete pavement across
the state.
Why? Kentucky has been installing new concrete pavement throughout the
state, from Interstates 264 and 265 in Louisville to Interstate 275 in
the Cincinnati metro. Those pavements either were at the end of their
life expectancy or past it. Modern concrete pavements, constructed and
maintained properly, can now last 40+ years.
We should be sticking it to the contractors for warranty pavement on
not just asphalt, but concrete. Give it to them for 20 years and they
will make sure that the pavement doesn't fail within that time frame.
It's cheaper for the taxpayers in the long-run and a more worthy money
investment that doesn't dig into the pockets of the Governor.
bill
I'm sick of the cheap approach we take in this country when building
motorways...that's all....nothing more than that. And if we always go
with the lowest bid we'll get a lowest bid-type highway system...oh
look! we have one!
Sherman L. Cahal
> "Sherman L. Cahal" <shermanca...@gmail.com> said in
> misc.transport.road:
>
> >Kentucky has been installing new concrete pavement throughout the
> >state, from Interstates 264 and 265 in Louisville to Interstate 275 in
> >the Cincinnati metro. Those pavements either were at the end of their
> >life expectancy or past it. Modern concrete pavements, constructed and
> >maintained properly, can now last 40+ years.
>
>
> As a taxpayer who lives within earshot of a major freeway, I wouldn't
> mind spending a little more if it meant less noise for the people who
> live within noise pollution range.
It can be. I've been near many freeways in Kentucky that feature
fairly quiet concrete pavements. When they are diamond ground in a
parallel fashion, the pavement becomes that much more quiet.
Now I've been on some very loud asphalt pavement - much louder than
many concrete pavements - such as Interstate 64 west of Frankfort to
Louisville.
Froggie
>
> But is it as quiet as rubberized asphalt?
>
> As a taxpayer who lives within earshot of a major freeway, I wouldn't
> mind spending a little more if it meant less noise for the people who
> live within noise pollution range.
MnDOT has done a lot of research into quieter concrete. To simplify,
they found that dragging a piece of astroturf across the concrete
right after pouring reduces the amount of "tin-ing" noise one normally
hears with a car driving along concrete.
On a related note, I found the costs quoted in the article quite
surprising. In my experience, concrete generally costs anywhere from
20-50% more than asphalt, but has lower overall maintenance costs and
lasts considerably longer (minimum 20-30 years before needing
maintenance, unlike asphalt that seldom lasts longer than 8 years,
especially on busy highways). My experience is basically a complete
opposite of what was quoted in the article.
Froggie | Picayune, MS | http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/
John Lansford
Uhhh, just because the lowest bidder typically gets the contract
doesn't mean they aren't required to follow the standards for building
the road. Whether they are the low bidder or the highest, the
standards for highway construction remain the same, so all that gains
you is spending more money for the same product.
John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/
John Lansford
Lately though, asphalt prices have skyrocketed thanks to rising oil
prices and refinery shortages. Concrete has also gone up due to
construction pressures (Katrina) and competition overseas, but since
those prices were higher already it may just mean that asphalt is
nearly the same cost now.
Here in NC the push for more concrete pavement for the reasons you
gave (less maintenance, more life) makes it more cost effective over
the life of the pavement when compared to asphalt, especially on high
volume roadways.
Sherman L. Cahal
Well, note that the asphalt company deposited some funds into the
pockets of Fletcher. More likely than not, I bet they received some
hefty kickbacks from an equally corrupt transportation cabinet...
bill
> Uhhh, just because the lowest bidder typically gets the contract
> doesn't mean they aren't required to follow the standards for building
> the road. Whether they are the low bidder or the highest, the
> standards for highway construction remain the same, so all that gains
> you is spending more money for the same product.
OK, then it's the standards people who get the blame. Doesn't matter,
because either way, we've not been honest about the expense of
operating and maintaining our national freeway system in this country.
We want to live in a grid of multi-lane limited-access roadways but we
don't care to pay for their proper upkeep.
John Lansford
>
>> Uhhh, just because the lowest bidder typically gets the contract
>> doesn't mean they aren't required to follow the standards for building
>> the road. Whether they are the low bidder or the highest, the
>> standards for highway construction remain the same, so all that gains
>> you is spending more money for the same product.
>
>OK, then it's the standards people who get the blame.
Except that blows away your rant over the "you get what you pay for
with the lowest bidder", doesn't it?
> Doesn't matter,
>because either way, we've not been honest about the expense of
>operating and maintaining our national freeway system in this country.
>We want to live in a grid of multi-lane limited-access roadways but we
>don't care to pay for their proper upkeep.
And not "caring to pay for their proper upkeep" has nothing to do with
either the standards or the highest/lowest bidder. Maintenance
funding is separate from construction money in state DOT budgets and
is often underfunded by the states. That much I agree with you on.
bill
> "bill" <billm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Uhhh, just because the lowest bidder typically gets the contract
> >> doesn't mean they aren't required to follow the standards for building
> >> the road. Whether they are the low bidder or the highest, the
> >> standards for highway construction remain the same, so all that gains
> >> you is spending more money for the same product.
>
> >OK, then it's the standards people who get the blame.
>
> Except that blows away your rant over the "you get what you pay for
> with the lowest bidder", doesn't it?
I suppose it does- although there is a difference between concrete and
asphalt- and many prerfer the latter.
> > Doesn't matter,
> >because either way, we've not been honest about the expense of
> >operating and maintaining our national freeway system in this country.
> >We want to live in a grid of multi-lane limited-access roadways but we
> >don't care to pay for their proper upkeep.
>
> And not "caring to pay for their proper upkeep" has nothing to do with
> either the standards or the highest/lowest bidder. Maintenance
> funding is separate from construction money in state DOT budgets and
> is often underfunded by the states. That much I agree with you on.
It is different- but you can't have one without the other. When an
agency proposes a certain highway project are future maintence costs
ever discussed? Are we told how much the future DOT budget will have
to be to add yet another multi-lane highway into the logbooks?
John Lansford
>On Mar 18, 2:19 pm, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> "bill" <billm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Uhhh, just because the lowest bidder typically gets the contract
>> >> doesn't mean they aren't required to follow the standards for building
>> >> the road. Whether they are the low bidder or the highest, the
>> >> standards for highway construction remain the same, so all that gains
>> >> you is spending more money for the same product.
>>
>> >OK, then it's the standards people who get the blame.
>>
>> Except that blows away your rant over the "you get what you pay for
>> with the lowest bidder", doesn't it?
>
>I suppose it does- although there is a difference between concrete and
>asphalt- and many prerfer the latter.
Certainly, especially on lower traffic volume roads where the cost of
closing lanes to patch the asphalt can become prohibitive.
>> And not "caring to pay for their proper upkeep" has nothing to do with
>> either the standards or the highest/lowest bidder. Maintenance
>> funding is separate from construction money in state DOT budgets and
>> is often underfunded by the states. That much I agree with you on.
>
>It is different- but you can't have one without the other. When an
>agency proposes a certain highway project are future maintence costs
>ever discussed? Are we told how much the future DOT budget will have
>to be to add yet another multi-lane highway into the logbooks?
That's why concrete continues to be popular on heavily travelled
roads; states can basically build it and forget about it for the next
20 years.
Free Lunch
"bill" <bill...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1174249979.1...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>On Mar 18, 2:19 pm, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> "bill" <billm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Uhhh, just because the lowest bidder typically gets the contract
>> >> doesn't mean they aren't required to follow the standards for building
>> >> the road. Whether they are the low bidder or the highest, the
>> >> standards for highway construction remain the same, so all that gains
>> >> you is spending more money for the same product.
>>
>> >OK, then it's the standards people who get the blame.
>>
>> Except that blows away your rant over the "you get what you pay for
>> with the lowest bidder", doesn't it?
>
>I suppose it does- although there is a difference between concrete and
>asphalt- and many prerfer the latter.
Some freeways appear to be a thick concrete base with an asphalt overlay
when built. I have no idea if this extends the life of the pavement or
not.
Free Lunch
John Lansford <jlns...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
<pfcrv2lidu1vqsa7d...@4ax.com>:
The problem comes when the state or city ignore the street or road
beyond the proper maintenance period. I'd much rather hit a pothole in
an asphalt road than a concrete one.
John Lansford
>On 18 Mar 2007 13:32:59 -0700, in misc.transport.road
>"bill" <bill...@hotmail.com> wrote in
><1174249979.1...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>>On Mar 18, 2:19 pm, John Lansford <jlnsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> "bill" <billm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Uhhh, just because the lowest bidder typically gets the contract
>>> >> doesn't mean they aren't required to follow the standards for building
>>> >> the road. Whether they are the low bidder or the highest, the
>>> >> standards for highway construction remain the same, so all that gains
>>> >> you is spending more money for the same product.
>>>
>>> >OK, then it's the standards people who get the blame.
>>>
>>> Except that blows away your rant over the "you get what you pay for
>>> with the lowest bidder", doesn't it?
>>
>>I suppose it does- although there is a difference between concrete and
>>asphalt- and many prerfer the latter.
>
>Some freeways appear to be a thick concrete base with an asphalt overlay
>when built. I have no idea if this extends the life of the pavement or
>not.
It's cheaper to overlay a concrete pavement with an asphalt layer once
the concrete is already there. The other option is to diamond grind
the concrete and put a new, thinner layer of concrete on top of it.
This takes time (both to grind and for the concrete to set) and if
there's a lot of traffic the delay costs become very high.
H.B. Elkins
is that Gov. Fletcher is in the middle of a re-election campaign and the
Courier-Journal has never supported him. They supported one of his opponents in
the 2003 primary and his opponent in the general election. The C-J has had a
hard-on (pardon the vulgarity) for Fletcher since before he took office. So they
are going to do anything, write any story, use any tool at their disposal to
make Fletcher look bad.
The contractors in question have a long history of contributing to candidates
from both parties, and the Transportation Cabinet has long had questions about
the quality of asphalt paving in Kentucky.
Just chalk this up as another slam of Ernie Fletcher instead of a serious expose
on the quality of highway construction.
--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"
Free Lunch
H.B. Elkins <hbel...@mis.net.restrictorplate> wrote in
<etm92...@drn.newsguy.com>:
Of course Ann Northup, also a Republican, is running against Fletcher
because almost everyone in the state is persuaded by the evidence that
Fletcher is corrupt.
Sherman L. Cahal
> On 19 Mar 2007 08:08:48 -0700, in misc.transport.road
> <etm9200...@drn.newsguy.com>:
>
> >One thing that is missing from this story and the comments subsequently posted
> >is that Gov. Fletcher is in the middle of a re-election campaign and the
> >Courier-Journal has never supported him. They supported one of his opponents in
> >the 2003 primary and his opponent in the general election. The C-J has had a
> >hard-on (pardon the vulgarity) for Fletcher since before he took office. So they
> >are going to do anything, write any story, use any tool at their disposal to
> >make Fletcher look bad.
>
> >The contractors in question have a long history of contributing to candidates
> >from both parties, and the Transportation Cabinet has long had questions about
> >the quality of asphalt paving in Kentucky.
>
> >Just chalk this up as another slam of Ernie Fletcher instead of a serious expose
> >on the quality of highway construction.
>
> Of course Ann Northup, also a Republican, is running against Fletcher
> because almost everyone in the state is persuaded by the evidence that
> Fletcher is corrupt.
The Daily Independent, the Herald-Leader, and various other newspapers
also ran the story as well. Flecher's ratings are pretty much in the
dumps (36% approve), ranked 43 out of 50.
Of course, we aren't as bad as the former governor of Ohio (Taft) that
commanded a brilliant 19% approval!
Free Lunch
"Sherman L. Cahal" <sherma...@gmail.com> wrote in
<1174329731.6...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
But you still have Ernie for the rest of the year. He still has a chance
to fight his way down to those depths, particularly now that Republicans
have also declared open season on him.
Sherman L. Cahal
> On 19 Mar 2007 11:42:11 -0700, in misc.transport.road
> <1174329731.674772.297...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
Well, the Transportation Cabinet is seeing a large shakeup as well...
I should have posted the articles when they were current, but now I'll
need to dig through the archives. It's certainly been open-season...
Random Waftings Of Bunker Blasts
<hbel...@mis.net.restrictorplate> said:
>One thing that is missing from this story and the comments subsequently posted
>is that Gov. Fletcher is in the middle of a re-election campaign and the
>Courier-Journal has never supported him. They supported one of his opponents in
>the 2003 primary and his opponent in the general election. The C-J has had a
>hard-on (pardon the vulgarity) for Fletcher since before he took office. So they
>are going to do anything, write any story, use any tool at their disposal to
>make Fletcher look bad.
Then how come even the Cincinnati Post (a very Republican paper) reports on
Ernie's scandals too?
--
Buy my book about school bullying here:
http://www.lulu.com/content/112781 (recommended)
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=1411626559
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1411626559
H.B. Elkins
>Of course Ann Northup, also a Republican, is running against Fletcher
>because almost everyone in the state is persuaded by the evidence that
>Fletcher is corrupt.
You mean brainwashed by the crap Greg Stumbo (the attorney general) has been
spewing for two years.
H.B. Elkins
>Then how come even the Cincinnati Post (a very Republican paper) reports on
>Ernie's scandals too?
I don't know anything about the Cincy/NKY media's political leanings, but I do
know (as a former newspaper editor myself) that reporting news is one thing,
manufacturing headlines out of irrelevant and old leaked documents and incessant
negative editorials is something quite different.
Free Lunch
>On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:04:37 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>>Of course Ann Northup, also a Republican, is running against Fletcher
>>because almost everyone in the state is persuaded by the evidence that
>>Fletcher is corrupt.
>
>You mean brainwashed by the crap Greg Stumbo (the attorney general) has been
>spewing for two years.
I assume you won't be persuaded uless Fletcher is behind bars.
H.B. Elkins
>I assume you won't be persuaded uless Fletcher is behind bars.
I make no apologies. I support Ernie Fletcher for re-election. The prosecution
of him was done for political reasons by a political rival. "Evidence" linking
him to any alleged misdemeanors of state hiring laws is sketchy. The employee
who was fired, whose dismissal resulted in many of the indictments, was not off
of his probation yet and thus was not protected by the civil service laws.
All charges against Ernie Fletcher were dismissed with prejudice. If the
attorney general thought he had a credible case, he would have pursued it. All
he really wanted were the indictments to inflict political damage. He didn't
need a conviction to accomplish his goals.
Random Waftings Of Bunker Blasts
<hbel...@mis.net.restrictorplate> said:
>I support Ernie Fletcher for re-election.
Now there's a sinking ship if there ever was one.