Purple Line Cost Deceptions Exposed (2015, how much, buying)

[Roscoe5000]

The true costs are finally being revealed - $650 million (30%) over budget.....before construction has even begun !!!

it's actually pretty amazing that the government and MTA have been attempting to be so deceptive for so long. Is anyone surprised that the recent financial pseudo-sorcery from Hogan has been revealed ?

It's time to scrap this wasteful bit of pork-barrel spending; it's not worth the cost even if the region gets a large pull at the federal teat.


True cost of building Purple Line would reach $2.65 billion, analysis finds

Since announcing the contract March 2, the Maryland Department of Transportation has referred to the Purple Line’s design and construction cost as $1.99 billion. But an analysis by the General Assembly’s Department of Legislative Services found that figure does not include $447 million of costs outside the contract or another $198 million that the state has already spent on planning the light-rail line.

Costs outside the contract include buying right-of-way, doing utility work and off-site environmental mitigation, reviewing the final design and overseeing construction, the analysis found.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...a31_story.html

[Roscoe5000]

Meanwhile, in related news, Metro leaders announce that Metro lines could be shut down for up to six months (!!) for maintenance, more than $1 billion will be needed for maintenance annually. (!!)

With Maryland being a major funder of WMATA, there's simply no way they can commit to $80 million annual payments (for 36 years) on the Purple Line and come up with any new funds for Metro.

We need to fix existing transit lines BEFORE wasting money on unnecessary new lines that are better served by buses anyways.


Metro could shut down entire rail lines to do extended maintenance, board chair says

Metro’s top officials warned Wednesday that the transit system is in such need of repair that they might shut down entire rail lines for as long as six months for maintenance, potentially snarling thousands of daily commutes and worsening congestion in the already traffic-clogged region.

Board Chairman Jack Evans and General Manager Paul J. Wiedefeld put rail riders on notice about possible extended closures at a high-level conference of local leaders.

The discussion also revealed strong resistance to what Evans said was a “dire” need for more than $1 billion a year in additional funding for Metro.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...mepage%2Fstory

[WhoDatInMD]

*Checks OP's join date and thread content*

We need to fix existing transit lines BEFORE wasting money on unnecessary new lines that are better served by buses anyways.

Woodfin, is that you?

[bufflove]

Originally Posted by WhoDatInMD

*Checks OP's join date and thread content*



Woodfin, is that you?

lol, had the same thought.

[bufflove]

Originally Posted by Roscoe5000

Meanwhile, in related news, Metro leaders announce that Metro lines could be shut down for up to six months (!!) for maintenance, more than $1 billion will be needed for maintenance annually. (!!)

With Maryland being a major funder of WMATA, there's simply no way they can commit to $80 million annual payments (for 36 years) on the Purple Line and come up with any new funds for Metro.

We need to fix existing transit lines BEFORE wasting money on unnecessary new lines that are better served by buses anyways.


Metro could shut down entire rail lines to do extended maintenance, board chair says

Metro’s top officials warned Wednesday that the transit system is in such need of repair that they might shut down entire rail lines for as long as six months for maintenance, potentially snarling thousands of daily commutes and worsening congestion in the already traffic-clogged region.

Board Chairman Jack Evans and General Manager Paul J. Wiedefeld put rail riders on notice about possible extended closures at a high-level conference of local leaders.

The discussion also revealed strong resistance to what Evans said was a “dire” need for more than $1 billion a year in additional funding for Metro.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...mepage%2Fstory

And for the record, OP, the state previously estimated a cost of $2.45B under O'Malley; bid Hogan accepted results in a $2.65B total cost, which is pretty darn close to outdated estimate. Saying the project is "already $650M over budget" is rather absurd and doesn't actually make sense. Though you're certainly right that it appears Hogan was trying to fudge the numbers to pretend he was coming in $500M under O'Malley's projection. Silly Hogan; not sure how he thought he was going to get away with that.

[Roscoe5000]

Originally Posted by bufflove

Though you're certainly right that it appears Hogan was trying to fudge the numbers to pretend he was coming in $500M under O'Malley's projection. Silly Hogan; not sure how he thought he was going to get away with that.

When you look at his exact words, some might characterize Hogan's comments by using a 3-letter word that starts with 'L'.

Altogether, Hogan said his administration found ways to reduce the state’s share of the cost from close to $700 million to $168 million.


I also like the disclaimer at the start of this WaPo article. Quite clearly, in the haste to get a long pull from the federal teat......honesty is being tossed by the wayside. Should be interesting to see how much the cost over-runs really are.

Correction: Because of incorrect information provided by the Montgomery County Executive’s office, an earlier version of this story inaccurately reported the amount of money the county has so far spent or committed to the Purple Line. The correct amount is $177.6 million. This version has been corrected.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...d8a_story.html

[Roscoe5000]

Originally Posted by bufflove

And for the record, OP, the state previously estimated a cost of $2.45B under O'Malley; bid Hogan accepted results in a $2.65B total cost, which is pretty darn close to outdated estimate.

a) Being nearly 10% over-budget before the project has even begun is nowhere near "pretty darn close" to an estimate. No matter what you say.

b) You refer to it being close to an "outdated estimate." Well.....OK, then. I guess we should be comparing it to the current estimate then. Right ? Which is just under $2 billion.

Thus :

Saying the project is "already $650M over budget" is rather absurd and doesn't actually make sense.

Saying the project is $650M over budget is nothing close to being absurd.

What kind of semantic games and outright dishonesty are those pushing the Purple Line trying to foist upon us ? Give us a fake revised estimate of what it will cost to garner support......then rationalize pre-construction over-runs by tossing out for comparison the "outdated" estimate we were told was too high and no longer relevant ?

This is nothing short of outright, intentional dishonesty. To say nothing of bad policy, and a boondoggle of an unnecessary project. It's embarrassing to witness. It's embarrassing to see people like you defend it.

[bufflove]

Originally Posted by Roscoe5000

a) Being nearly 10% over-budget before the project has even begun is nowhere near "pretty darn close" to an estimate. No matter what you say.

b) You refer to it being close to an "outdated estimate." Well.....OK, then. I guess we should be comparing it to the current estimate then. Right ? Which is just under $2 billion.

Thus :



Saying the project is $650M over budget is nothing close to being absurd.

What kind of semantic games and outright dishonesty are those pushing the Purple Line trying to foist upon us ? Give us a fake revised estimate of what it will cost to garner support......then rationalize pre-construction over-runs by tossing out for comparison the "outdated" estimate we were told was too high and no longer relevant ?

This is nothing short of outright, intentional dishonesty. To say nothing of bad policy, and a boondoggle of an unnecessary project. It's embarrassing to witness. It's embarrassing to see people like you defend it.

But the project isn't $650M over budget; that's the point. The project's budget was just set and hasn't changed.

And it's not "nearly 10% over-budget," either. The $2.45B estimate was just that - an estimate. An estimate that was exceptionally close to what ended up being selected, in fact - within about 5% after accounting for inflation.

Does that make sense? I'm not sure you're understanding what the word "budget" means. The budget is what the budget is; it hasn't changed.

[bufflove]

But I agree that it appears to be a complete B.S. move by Hogan to try and pretend the contract came in under estimates, unless said estimates always counted land acquisition and pre-engineering costs as separate.

[Roscoe5000]

Originally Posted by bufflove

But the project isn't $650M over budget; that's the point. The project's budget was just set and hasn't changed.

LOL, you are good with semantics. Almost.

Fair enough - the word "budget" is not the best choice. However, the Board of Public Works is about to vote on a contract which would total $1.99 billion. In other words, this analysis shows that the amount the Board will be voting on is totally specious. It's nothing short of intentional deception.

Your word-jockeying around the word "budget" changes nothing regarding the fact that the state and Governor are peddling false figures with regard to this boondoggle.


The true costs of building a Purple Line in the Maryland suburbs would reach $2.65 billion — about $650 million more than the light-rail project’s proposed contract would cover, according to a legislative analysis.

Under the contract, on which the state’s Board of Public Works is scheduled to vote on April 6, the line’s design and construction costs would total about $1.99 billion. However, the legislative review found that that dollar figure doesn’t include $447 million in construction costs that aren’t part of the contract. Those costs include buying right-of-way, doing off-site environmental mitigation, doing utility work, reviewing the final design and overseeing construction.

It also doesn’t include $198 million that the state has spent on planning the light-rail line, according to the analysis by the General Assembly’s Department of Legislative Services.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...nalysis-finds/

And it's not "nearly 10% over-budget," either. The $2.45B estimate was just that - an estimate. An estimate that was exceptionally close to what ended up being selected, in fact - within about 5% after accounting for inflation.

We've already covered the word "budget". And that $2.45 billion figure was made irrelevant when Hogan peddled that hogwash that the project's cost would net $1.99 billion. This new analysis shows that the cost will be closer to $2.65 billion - and that they are essentially voting based on a fraudulent forecast.

With regard to your mention of "inflation"; Please. Forecast costs not yet spent are not adjusted for inflation. Please do not insist on receiving a lesson on finance and the time value of money.