Skip to main content

View Diary: MN knew the bridge could collapse (256 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I hate the new archive search. (0+ / 0-)

    Anyway, here's the spreadsheet.

    On the Metro page, the first project is Bridge 9340. FWHA money is 90%.

    Second project, big project, FWHA money is less than 2%. I don't know what AC means, the source of most of the funding.

    Third project, a park-and-ride lot, FWHA money is 100%.

    What does this all mean? Durned if I know.

    •  AC (0+ / 0-)

      AC is Advance Construction, also federal money.

    •  Your link doesn't work. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      So I don't know what you're looking at.

      If you are looking at an earmark for new construction it is entirely possible that things are funded at 90% or better.  Also the 135w bridge was probably funded at 90-10 when it was built in the 60's because that was the original mandate for the interstate system.  Keep in mind that you want to be looking at the interstate system funding because it is a federal not a state road system.

      Here is a wiki link for an overview of the history of the program:

      The rest of my information comes from about 15-20 different articles that I read shortly after the bridge collapsed.

      •  The link worked when I wrote the comment. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I checked it then, but it isn't working now for me either. I hope this is only temporary.

        No, not new construction, except possibly for the park-and-ride, which was only a few hundred thousand dollars.

        The first project was Bridge 9340, about $3 million, I think. Second project was for a different job on I35 in the Metro area, about $242 million (I think), resurfacing and such.

        I'll try to birddog the link.

        Haven't read the wiki yet.

      •  quick, quick, quick! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        (The link is working now.)

      •  The wiki (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        inclusiveheart, Leggy Starlitz

        says nothing about state/federal funding ratios.

        I was interested to learn, however, that so much funding came from federal general funds. I didn't know that - is it way past time to increase the federal gasoline/diesel tax?

        •  There is a reference under financing: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          About 56%[6] of the construction and maintenance costs are funded through user fees, primarily gasoline taxes, collected by states and the federal government, and tolls collected on toll roads and bridges. The rest of the costs are borne by the federal budget.

          I'd have to dig through comments from weeks ago to find some the articles and references and hope that I linked to them at the time.  But this has been a policy issue for quite some time now.  It is a broader issue affecting many aspects of the federal-state financial relationship.  From what I could gather from reading the articles, the aggregate contribution from the Feds has been in decline for fifteen years.  There has been a lot of gamesmanship in how matching funds have been determined as well.  The Woodrow Wilson Bridge (major connector on I95) was just replaced here in the DC metro area and there was quite a bit of weirdness in the negotiations between the federal government and MD and VA.  I was trying to research that history yesterday, but I really didn't have time to track through the years and years of articles to pull together a case study.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site