|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nov. 9, 2006 |
For more information, contact: |
Rising construction costs continue to erode highway agencies' buying power AMES, Iowa – Rising construction costs continue to erode the buying power of Iowa 's highway agencies. The Iowa Department of Transportation's analysis of construction award prices highlights the dramatic increases experienced in recent years. According to Iowa Department of Transportation Director Nancy Richardson, “Higher construction costs, as well as other factors, are hindering the state's ability to make needed repairs, preserve our system, and build new roads. Delayed and deferred work is more costly in terms of financial outlay, as well as to our state's economic growth.” The Iowa DOT's analysis of construction contract award prices for the last three and a half years showed roadway excavation prices have risen by 66.4 percent, hot-mix asphalt by 28 percent, Portland cement concrete by 2 percent, reinforcing steel by 33 percent, structural steel by 18 percent, and structural concrete by 9.5 percent. Reflected in these higher construction prices are the increased costs of materials, machinery, wages, fuel, and insurance. For instance, diesel fuel used in asphalt mixes, and construction vehicles and equipment rose 88 percent in the last two years. These higher construction prices are having a dramatic impact on the buying power of state and local highway agencies. The chart below illustrates how much less can be purchased today in comparison to 1989, which was the last time Iowa 's fuel tax rates were increased.
The Iowa Transportation Commission is scheduled to approve the FY 2007-2011 Transportation Improvement Program at its Nov. 14 meeting. The construction award price analysis is an important foundation for determining project cost projections for the five-year program. The proposed program includes $2 billion for right-of-way acquisition and construction. Due to the recent dramatic increases in construction costs, fewer projects than had been anticipated could be funded. #
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
||