More on transit, less on…transit
UPDATED AT BOTTOM
There is an interesting story from Tim Budig today, on lawmakers’ questions about a stipend given contractors who lost the bid for the I-35W bridge project:
Rep. Jeremy Kalin, DFL-Lindstrom, and Sen. Jim Carlson, DFL-Eagan, wondered why the stipend was increased from $300,000 to $500,000.
Not included in the story, but sent in a press release is this quote from Kalin:
“The stipend for the losing bidders has increased 66 percent from the original contract before the bids have even been opened,” said Rep. Kalin. “The public has heard no reason given for this huge increase and we’ve heard no criteria for the cost overrun. We’re talking about $600,000 that should be used to invest in our roads, bridges, and transit, not on bonuses for losing bids.”
I have no idea how $500,000 became $600,000 from one paragraph to another, but we’ll assume there is a reason (see update at bottom). More importantly, please do note the inclusion of transit by Kalin:
The amount was increased, explained an official, because of the additional burden of needing to add a light rail component to the bridge design.
Taking Mn/DOT at its word, the *$600,000 no longer available for “roads, bridges, and transit” is gone as a direct result of…transit.
Kalin is certainly correct that the money is no longer available for roads and bridges, but it appears the primary reason for that is the opportunism of politicians who want to use the bridge collapse as an excuse to further light rail boondoggles.
It was transit mavens who demanded the bridge support a light rail component. Now they turn around and blast Mn/DOT when they have to cover the extra expenses?
That’s rich.
UPDATE: Kalin explained the $500,000/$600,000 issue. The increase from $300,000 to $500,000 is for each bidder, of which there are three. Therefore, the increase is $200,000 per bidder for a grand total of $600,000. I have amended a later portion of the post to reflect the accurate numbers. That area is marked with a star (*).
Pat,
FYI - This morning on MPR Linda Figg with FIGG engineering who worked on Flatiron’s bid, said they never looked at the design cost of incorporating light rail as the bid required it.
So, to say there was a cost associated with the incorporation of light rail isn’t accurate. She went on to say that they merely made some simple load adjusts for weight, suggesting it really wasn’t a big deal.
Thought you’d like to know.
Wade
Wade,
Thanks for your comment. I can’t speak to what Figg might have said about Flatiron’s design since I didn’t hear the interview.
I can say, however, that the fact that I-35W bridge costs have increased because of light rail inclusion is hardly in doubt. See the Star Tribune for the $20 - 35 million in additional construction costs.
MPR also has a a story on the additional costs due to LRT complications, including this quote:
The additional cost of LRT is one of several issues that may complicate the rebuilding process. (emphasis added)
My question is: If light rail has added design and construction costs to the bridge, why is the state not using dedicated light rail funds to finance that portion of the project? Instead we are using road and bridge funds on design additions and construction that’s only purpose is to serve LRT.
Lawmakers insist we don’t confuse “road and bridge” and “transit” funds. According to Kalin, they aren’t interchangeable and transit funds cannot be used to finance road and bridge projects. Apparently though, the opposite is not the case as lawmakers seem prepared to finance what is, in essence, a transit project with road and bridge funds.
To take directly from road and bridge to finance transit, and then attack Mn/DOT over $600,000, doesn’t seem fair or right to me.
Again, thanks for visiting and for your comment.
Hey, Pat
I think we may be talking apples and oranges.
So,there is the cost to design LRT which is separate from the cost to build. The issue involving $600,000 has to do with design cost. And Ms Figgs point was that is was inconsequential and merely involved load recalculations. A 66% increase in stipend for light rail design doesn’t make sense and I think it is a good question to ask.
Now, to talk about LRT. You make some important semantic arguments that have merit. And I agree we shouldn’t be spending roads & bridge dollars on LRT. I believe the urgency of the need to re-build, with time clearly being of the essence, required that semantics be over-looked. Certainly many semantics in getting federal funding were sped up or over-looked to make it happen. I think it is necessary in times of crisis. To heck with the snapping turtles under the bridge - we need to just get it built.
But to the bigger question, you refer in your earlier posting to LRT as a boondoggle. Do you really think that? I was at my brother-in-laws wedding in Chicago and totally envied their transit system. My gosh, the city could never work without it. And isn’t that the main question whether; we need it or not?
Curious to know what you think.
Have a good day - Wade