From AP via Baltimore Sun, August 30 dateline:
About a year ago, Missouri highway officials outlined a plan to repair or replace 802 of its worst bridges, but the legislature adjourned in May without enabling a bidding process. Two weeks after the collapse of the Minneapolis bridge, Governor Matt Blunt announced that he would include the bridge legislation in a special session, and the legislature sent the passed bill to the governor on August 29. Swift action indeed.
This bill pertains only to bridges less than 300 feet long, and doesn’t affect 171 bridges "in similarly serious or poor condition." The 2006 National Bridge Inventory reports 4,595 Missouri bridges to be structurally deficient, according to the AP article. From what I know of the 2006 NBI for Maryland, the number of structurally deficient Missouri bridges may be underreported.
The plan would require the winning contractor to fix or replace all 802 bridges within five years -- a task that otherwise would take two decades at Missouri's current pace.
The state would start paying the contractor only after all the repairs were completed, and the contractor would have to maintain the bridges in satisfactory condition for the next 25 years.
Breathtaking.
AP reports estimates of construction costs between $400 million and $600 million, saying financing and maintenance costs could "easily" double the ultimate cost to the state. Perhaps we’re talking one billion dollars over 30 years. Seems awfully cheap for a 30-year contract to repair, replace, and maintain 802 poor or seriously deficient bridges, even if they are small ones.
Are these numbers anywhere near reasonable? I don’t know. Maybe the department of transportation expects the winning team to use chain-gang labor.
Here’s the kicker. What are the implications of this:
The plan requires the winning contractor to secure its own private financing. The state would then use at least one-third of its annual federal bridge dollars to pay the contractor.
Missouri collects $0.1755 tax and fees per gallon of motor fuel at present, one of the lowest rates in the U.S. The gas tax won’t be increased in this plan.
I’ve never been clear on the financing plan advocated by Minnesota Governor Pawlenty. Is the Missouri plan similar to Pawlenty’s preferred scheme? Is Missouri really guaranteeing "at least one-third of its annual federal bridge dollars" for 30 years? If Missouri’s future federal bridge money is a secure funding base, could it be used to back bonds dedicated to the program?
If Missouri’s future federal bridge money isn’t secure, why would a contractor agree to fund the program with private financing, except possibly to make more profit by assuming added risk?
Can Missouri allocate 30 years of federal money without prior federal approval?
I’m guessing that most of those 802 bridges aren’t elements of the Interstate system or the National Highway system, although I don’t know for sure. In any case, I don’t know what share of the state/federal financing formula Missouri bears for the bridges in question. Surely it has some responsibility, though. Republicans say States should step up and take care of their own responsilities, but this particular Republican government (Governor, House, and Senate are all Republican) anticipates that the Federal government will shoulder this burden. And it isn’t an emergency situation, it’s something they’ve gotten themselves into through decades of chronic neglect. How are they being responsible?
Is this financing approach the wave of the future? Is it at all viable? Something doesn’t seem right. Something smells really bad, in fact. The legislation raises more questions than it answers for me, and I don’t have answers.
Can any of you help shed light on this?
UPDATE: Here is the 4-page pdf file of HB2, which implements the so-called Safe & Sound Bridge Improvement program.