When the light-rail line in Norfolk, Virginia, went nearly 50 percent over its projected cost, the general manager of Hampton Roads Transit resigned in disgrace–but they gave him $300,000 in severance pay. Now documents have come to light that agency officials knew the line was going to cost more than their published projections but kept the true cost secret from the public and the Federal Transit Administration when they were seeking funding for the project.
Norfolk light rail under construction.
Flickr photo by DearEdward.
On top of that, the state has found that the transit agency broke contracting and bidding laws when it gave contracts to favored consultants and “preferred individuals”–no doubt ones who would low-ball the cost estimates and not reveal the true costs until construction was well underway. The transit agency’s current CEO is talking about bringing criminal charges against the now-departed officials who were in charge when the line was being planned.
It has been concluded in the past that sex can lead to heart complications but it has not yet canada viagra been able to come to draw a clear conclusion over how exactly testosterone increases libido (sex drive). Michael had been scheduled to perform 50 sold out concerts to more than a million folks at 02 Stadium from July 13 and was designed to make a dramatic comeback. generic uk viagra mouthsofthesouth.com How about 2 Step simple? Would that get it done today, get it done now! Alcoholism is a potentially debilitating and even life-threatening disease that is affecting cialis cipla erection issues. The little blue pill cheap viagra pfizer has been a revolution since its launch in helping men overcome erectile dysfunction. Norfolk is learning what the residents of a lot of other cities could have told them: transit agencies will always lie about the cost of light rail, before, during, and after construction. For example, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) recently bragged that it completed a $1.8 billion light-rail line under budget. That sounds great except for the fact that the line was only supposed to cost $1.1 billion. (Those are “year of expenditure dollars” so there is no need to adjust for inflation.) So when they say “under budget,” they mean “less than the budget that we had to increase by $700 million after we decided to build the line.”
Here are a couple more lessons Norfolk should learn before they make the same mistakes other cities have made. First, light rail almost always costs about 40 to 50 percent more than the projected cost. Whatever cost they tell you, add 40 to 50 percent to get a realistic number.
Second, the first light-rail line always costs the least; later lines end up being far more expensive. Portland’s first line cost about $200 million; the second $960 million. The $338 million cost of Norfolk’s new line is going to sound cheap compared to any other lines the transit agency may be planning.
Third, don’t forget all the hidden costs. These include the costs of subsidies to so-called transit-oriented developments along the line and the costs of maintaining the line, which grow over time and which your agency has probably not budgeted for.
The Antiplanner’s advice to Norfolk: Don’t even run the trains. Sell the railcars to some other sucker city, pave over the rails, and turn the route into busways or bike paths. It will save you hundreds of millions of dollars and a lot of headaches in the long run.
The Antiplanner wrote:
These include the costs of subsidies to so-called transit-oriented developments along the line and the costs of maintaining the line, which grow over time and which your agency has probably not budgeted for.
The initial claims by promoters are that the rail line will provide highway traffic congestion relief.
When the promised congestion relief does not happen, then there will be reports and studies published by anti-auto/anti-highway special interest groups, asserting that residential densificiation is needed to “get the most” out of the rail line or lines.
Then the rails themselves and the tracks will start to wear, and traction power supplies will need to be “upgraded.” And at about the same time, the rail vehicles themselves will need “mid-life overhauls,” costing costing hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars per unit.
Actually the $1.1 billion you cite refers to the federally funded section of the DART Green Line, about 21 miles. The full Green Line is 28 miles long and came in about 3% under the budget of $1.8 billion. The federal contribution was $700 million.
Well, what do we have here? A mouthpiece for the Dallas area “fraud rail” has come over to defend the boondoggle. Do tell us more about how the fraud rail has “enticed development” and “reduced congestion”….
Though, I think what we are really waiting for is the words of wisdom from Dan, Highwayman, or Andrew.
Remember, folks, don’t feed the trolls, no matter how stupid they are.
I forgot to list msetty too, so sorry about that! Tell us, Oh Wise Progressive, of the glories of light rail and streetcars!
Even better, replace Mike’s ‘feed’ with ‘read’.
I’m interested to hear why someone with information on the project has different information than a pro-auto dependency promoter.
DS
Ah, Dan, tell us more about this “pro-auto dependency” you speak of. I am assuming that you have removed the evil automobile from your personal life and walk or take transit to every destination, no?
Two things.
1. To call the Antiplanner “a pro-auto dependence promoter” is to overlook all the content about private transit options.
2. Metrosucks has a point. Dan lives in a suburban house with attached garage and drives a Jeep into the Rockies for fun. Apparently, it’s very easy to accuse others of promoting something while simultaneously embracing the thing for which we condemn the other.
Good point Frank. The Antiplanner is not “anti-transit”, he is simply “anti-subsidy”. Cars happen to be the most economically and socially useful, and least-subsidized form of transportation. However, it’s also typical for these would-be-planner tyrants to do exactly the opposite of what they preach. Do as I say, not as I do. Right, Dan?
Frank, I’m quite sure my carbon footprint has been smaller than yours for likely more than two decades, since the tour bike with panniers is always ready to go to the grocery store to help my mileage go well into the thousands/annum. Among many other things.
But harrumphing hypocrisy about them greenies usin’ th’ airplayne ‘n’ wantin to live in a cave is sooooo 90s. As is wanting private buses to cherry-pick routes. Ya dig me ‘bre?
DS
Leave it to Dan to adopt his best Appalachians hick impression when he runs out of talking points….he does it so well.
“Frank, I’m quite sure my carbon footprint has been smaller than yours for likely more than two decades…”
Yes, let’s bring this down to a
di©kfootprint measuring contest.While I dig ya on many points you make, this is one where your choices speak volumes against your rhetoric.
Dan! What did I say about feeding the trolls, no matter how smartass punkasses they might be?!!
Dan wrote:
I’m interested to hear why someone with information on the project has different information than a pro-auto dependency promoter.
Dan, any promoter of any rail transit project in the United States is, by implication, promoting auto dependency, since all U.S. rail transit systems are profoundly dependent on capital (and frequently) operating subsidies from motorists.
I believe you have thoroughly confused Dan and msetty with something known as “the truth”.
Mike, I agree but either there are two Franks here, or I thought I was responding to the Frank on his meds. Either way makes it tough, surely, and ignoring both Franks eliminates the sane Frank from discussion.
CPZ, there is no need to distract away from what appears to be a condition where someone associated with the project is disputing Randal’s numbers. It is important to find out why there is a discrepancy, and clearly the text I typed makes that clear. Thanks!
DS
#8 was a completely rational observation. Sorry to see it has provoked the Dan of #10 to display is his Hyde alter ego and to speak in tongues.
I guess I’ll ignore all Franks here, as we can’t be assured one of them is going to take their meds. Ah, well – one bad apple. Whaddya gone dew?
DS
We should also ignore all the Dans here, which is actually kind of easy, because they all reside in DS‘s head.
Only 50% over budget?? They have no clue how to run Project useing Free Money from the Goverment. Tell us when the project approaches 4 or 5 times the original budget.
Boston’s big Dig started as a 3 Billion project. Certinly that much $$$ would be enough—- but they went through that much in planning stage – before thay even turned a shovelful of dirt. The eventual cost was nearly 22 billion – ( or maybe more depending on who’s counting.
http://www.thetruthaboutplas.com/2010/06/29/the-most-infamous-pla-job-lessons-from-bostons-big-dig/
Metrosucks; The Antiplanner is not “anti-transitâ€, he is simply “anti-subsidyâ€. Cars happen to be the most economically and socially useful, and least-subsidized form of transportation.
THWM: The Autoplanner is anti-transit, though more to the point anti-rail. If he favored less subsidy then he would push for more lower cost light rail than buses in urban areas.
Sheesh you guys are assholes. When I walk to the grocery store, I’m still paying for the parking lot.
You sure like the word “asshole”, Fraudman. Are you trying to tell us something here?