November 15, 2003
As Predicted By Designer, Cost Estimates Jump For Aerial Tram
In a recent interview conducted by Randy Gragg (see this previous item), tram designer Sarah Graham called the $15.5 million figure for the project "political" and not reflective of what the project would realistically require.
According to today's Oregonian, other parties involved now appear to be conceding her point:
Figures issued Friday suggest that the tram between Oregon Health & Science University and the South Waterfront Urban Renewal Area could cost between $24 million and $30.2 million, far exceeding the original budget of $15.5 million.
Of course, precisely what this means for the project now is not entirely a settled matter. According to the paper, Portland Aerial Transportation has asked Graham to find cost savings while it seeks further funding.
Pat LaCrosse, chairman of Portland Aerial Transportation, described negotiations for the first $15.5 million as "lengthy and excruciating." He added, "The process of getting other means also will be excruciating."
City Commissioner Jim Francesconi, who serves on the tram board, called for OHSU to play a larger financial role. The university contributed $9 million to the original funding pool. Steve Stadum, OHSU's general counsel, said he doubted the university would add more.
Stadum said he didn't want to negotiate the matter in public, but he noted after the meeting that state energy credits might be a potential source of money.
The paper reports that Graham says that $25 million is a more realistic figure, and that if funding only amounted to $20 million, "I think we'd have to go to the public and say it's a different deal now."
Some parties already seem to be considering cutbacks in the design of the lower platform, for example -- raising the possibility (although it is not raised in the article) that the City might have to deal with the warning Graham essentially gave previously. To paraphrase: If the project doesn't have the funding for the job to be done properly, Graham's firm could always end up walking away rather doing what it might consider to be a half-assed job.
Comments (2)
Dave Lister on 16 Nov 2003
So it's going to cost more than they first said. Now there's a big surprise. Can anyone name any of these projects that don't go over budget?
Consider:
70 million to bury the reservoirs. Some experts say expect 200 million.
6.5 million to buy the failed water billing software program (under Sten). Overruns, lost billings and overtime expenses ran that one up to 20 million (they guess... nobody knows for sure). Severn Trent agreed to refund 7 million, but had to be retained for three more years to keep the system cobbled together.
Now they're looking to buy a new system (3.5 to 6 million) under Saltzman. What do you want to bet that won't go two or three times over also?
Our city mothers and fathers need to get realistic and start doubling or tripling these initial estimates when they do their planning.
P. on 17 Nov 2003
Dave Lister asks, "Can anyone name any of these projects that don't go over budget?"
I understand that the next Light Rail project is being completed *under budget* and ahead of schedule.