|
||||||||||||
|
|
Lawmakers question fast pace of new bridge project
The fast-tracking of the new I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis has some lawmakers on edge and they made those feelings clear to MnDOT today in Saint Paul. "I'm seeing (the balance) between building it fast and building it right has a big question mark over it," Senator Ann Rest told MnDOT engineers who appeared in a packed legislative hearing room in the State Office Building. "I'm going to need a lot of redundancy and assurances that building it fast equals building right, and I for one am not there yet," the veteran New Hope Democrat offered. MnDOT's district engineer Khani Sahebjam conceded the job of replacing the fallen span is moving along at lightning speed, compared to most projects of this magnitude. "It's becoming obvious this is not a normal way of doing business. Not too many things are normal with this," Sahebjam told a joint meeting of the Senate and House transportation committees, but he promised the MnDOT won't allow contractors to skimp on safety or durability. "Safety and quality and interest in reason will not be compromised in building this bridge," MnDOT can build the new bridge, now tabbed at $150 million, without any permission or oversight from the Legislature ? but the agency can't afford to leave lawmakers on the sidelines completely. Legislators control the agency's purse strings from year to year, and want to know what kind of impact the bridge will have on the state's transportation coffers which are already stretched thin. Wakota Bridge ComparisonsSenator Kathy Saltzman, Democrat of Woodbury, said her constituents are concerned the state is rushing into the project. She pointed out the state's latest Mississippi River crossing, the Wakota Bridge in South Saint Paul, has dragged on for years after been hit with major delays caused by design defects and cash-flow problems. "The people in my district are asking is this going too fast? If we can't build a bridge in three to five years why do we think we can do it now in overdrive?" Sahebjam said his neighbors are telling him the opposite, "I'm actually hearing a lot you guys can do it in one year, more power to you." As for the problems with the Wakota Bridge on I-494 Sahebjam said that can't be compared to the situation in Minneapolis. "I think the difference here this case there's a bridge in the water. There's a big gap in the system. With the Wakota now the west bound (lanes are) open." The primary contractor on the Wakota project, Lunda Construction and is one of five companies certified to bid on the 35W project. Lunda is in a dispute with MnDOT over building the second span in the Wakota project, but assistant Commissioner Bob McFarlin last week reiterated the state's confidence in Lunda's performance. Murphy's MisgivingsIn an interview with KARE 11 before the hearing, Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Steve Murphy said his panel isn't trying to stand in the way of the new bridge. "We're not trying to stop them. We're just saying 'Hey let's make sure we don't make another mistake like Wakota Bridge.'" The Red Wing Democrat told KARE the fast-tracking of the replacement leaves lawmakers with far more questions than answers. That's why he wanted to give his colleagues a chance to query MnDOT engineers. "We want to know what they know. They obviously know a lot more than we do, because in their mind the bridge is already built." While Congress committed federal funding for the project within days of the collapse, Murphy says the state will still be on the hook for a share of it. "With federal funds the state has to come up with the money beforehand, spend it and then get reimbursed. So where is all that state money going to come from? Because they're flat broke over at MnDOT." The long-time advocate of a fuel tax hike said he hopes to get it done during a special session, especially now that Governor Pawlenty has signaled support. "Nobody's giving bridges away. Nobody's giving concrete or steel away. It has to be paid for." The prospects of a special session are still not clear. Governor Pawlenty says he's open to the idea only if he can get an agreement upfront from DFL leaders that the scope will be limited to one or two topics. Once Governor Pawlenty calls a session he can't stop it. Constitutionally only lawmakers can vote to adjourn so once it starts it could go on indefinitely. Barring some pact with Democrats, which is yet to happen, the Governor won't call a special session.
|
 MORE HEADLINES |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
