|
|
Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management Crisis and Emergency Management Newsletter Website |
|
| |
December
2006
Volume
11 - Number 3 |
|
By Zavaletta The Northridge Earthquake hit Los Angeles on a Monday, January 17, 1994, at 4:30 a.m. at a magnitude of 6.8. Even though the earthquake lasted merely one minute FEMA reported it, at the time, as one of the largest and most costly federal disasters at $44 billion. The quake affected over 2,100 square miles damaging 114,000 commercial and residential structures and resulted in the death of 72 individuals. Because Southern California’s regional mobility is extremely auto-dependent, the most economically significant blow to Los Angeles resulted from damage to four of its critical freeways (I-5, SR-14, I-10 and SR-118). The region’s highway network is considered the most extensive in the world and is a vital intermodal west-to-east transfer point for the transport of goods across the United States. The Los Angeles port represents the busiest intermodal freight port in the U.S. handling over 5 million 20-foot containers per year. The closure of I-10 alone cost California an estimated $1 million per day in lost wages, added fuel costs, and depressed business activity. The utmost amazing facet of the highway reconstruction project is that most laud it as an economic success story and an example of how government and market forces can work in tandem. This inevitably required unprecedented cooperation between federal, state and local sectors- public and private. This cooperation and the innovative and flexible solutions exhibited at every level resulted in the early completion of three out of four of the highway rebuilding projects. I-10, the major west-east freight corridor, was rebuilt in less than half the time stipulated by the state of California. I-5, the major freeway connecting Northern and Southern California, was finished 33 days ahead of schedule. There were a number of factors that contributed to such a successful reconstruction, the most important being the following: • The FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) and CALTRANS (California Department of Transportation) conceded to an expedited contracting process that permitted construction contracts to be awarded in 3-5 days instead of the usual 26-40 weeks. • FHWA and CALTRANS utilized three different competitive bidding mechanisms that offered contractors incentives to finish ahead of schedule as well as penalties for superceding the deadline. • President Clinton denied the suspension of the Davis-Bacon Act. According to an Economic Policy Institute briefing paper entitled, Lessons for Post-Katrina Reconstruction: A High Road vs. Low Road Recovery, “The Davis-Bacon Act prevents the federal government from undercutting local labor standards. The act requires that contractors putting up government buildings and paving federal roads compete with each other based on their ability to manage jobs, their technical abilities, and construction experience, but not on their ability to undercut each other’s wage rates or health insurance and pension contributions.” The end product is that construction projects attract the most skilled workers which results in a posthaste building project. It is a fallacy to assume that all levels of expertise are equally productive. This act also encourages the employment of local labor which ensures maximum economic benefits to the local economy. Sources: Effects of Catastrophic Events on Transportation System Management and Operations: Northridge Earthquake, U.S. Department of Transportation, Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, April 22, 2002, at http://www.its.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/13775_files/13775.pdf (accessed October 2006) Los Angeles Earthquake: Opinions of Officials on Federal Impediments to Rebuilding, GAO, June 1994, at http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/151823.pdf (accessed October 2006) Philips, Peter. Lessons for Post-Katrina Reconstruction: A High-Road vs. Low-Road Recovery, Economic Policy Institute, October 2005, at http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/166/bp166.pdf (accessed October 2006) |