In general, earthmoving seems to have become relatively less expensive in my 28 years in the "biz." Seems its always been around a buck a yard, maybe less in the 80's, but still about $1.50 now, sometimes less, and certainly less than the CPI would indicate.
I posted a few weeks ago about the earthmover bidding at $0.59 per CY to bankrupt his company, but am not talking about that unique situation. It has been explained to me that ever bigger pans and buckets, including the pull behind tractor type which cost about $150K per unit as opposed to CAT scrapers at half a mil a copy account for much of that - less debt on machinery and greater capacity. That includes toploading, which used to go for a buck a yard extra, but now rarely costs much more than other dirt.
But, I am sure YOU know that, but that horn rimmed glasses guy is still hangin out, and I worry about a lawsuit against Ran if he trips over those shoelaces.
On the other hand, PVC drain pipe really hasn't gone up with inflation either. Always seems to hang at about $1 per lineal foot, plus or minus. Now, irrigation seems to be a different story, and I accuse my irrigation designers of being related to Jesse James, because they heist my budgets far too often!
Another question for inquiring minds - is small diameter pipe the best value in drainage? Since a circular area rises with the square of the diameter, a 8 inch pipe has not twice, but 4 times the capacity of a 4" pipe. Yet, it only (at a buck a foot) only costs twice as much. Which do you recommend?
I go with the 8", as you might guess. As Katrina proves in a big way - never underestimate the damaging power of water. And, most golf courses have drainage designed to 'everyday storm standards" if that, so they tend to be way to small anyway, in the sense that if they overflow a few times a month, at some point, the cost of lost revenue exceeds the cost of debt on the larger pipe.
Going back to the topic of greater sophisitcation, eyeballing drain pipes rather than using rudimentary drainage calculation formulas is an area where I think many gca's do need to get more sophisticated. Its also an area where I see great potential for lawsuits, and a gca going to court saying that designing for health safety and welfare just didn't seem as important as minimalism will not fly.
How about adapting to changing conditions? When I was green as peas, 1% was considered adequate slope for drainage. That has gradually gone up through collective experience to 2, 2.5 and now 3%. With the advent of more sodded fairways and poor irrigation water, I would say the minimum slope on some projects should be 4% to make it work properly. So, depending on a lot of factors, on one site, leaving a 1.75% grade as is would be acceptable. On another, it would not.
Just my opinion based on experience, even if I wish it weren't so. Made worse by the fact that we work side by side with engineers who use much, much higher standards, and are probably whispering in the Owners ear about what incompetents we are compared to them! And, from their perspective, we are.......so in a way, I guess I am disagreeing with Tom Doak - whether we want it to be or not, others judge whether we should simplify the process, not ourselves. And, sometimes, it just does have to be more complicated than we like.
Its an interesting subject to me - the floating notion of community standards. They float, but like balloons, mostly float upwards. Whether that is the duty of care to warn of lightning, or to protect the enviroment, or the rights of the disabled, the gca doesn't decide, someone else does, all too often through a lawsuit alleging negligence. Or in other cases, word of mouth in the industry about your ability to produce effective golf courses.