The interior of the SouthWest Station.
The interior of the SouthWest Station being constructed in Eden Prairie as part of the Southwest Light Rail transit project. Credit: Metropolitan Council

So much bad news has flowed from the Met Council and its Southwest light rail transit project that a harsh report from the state’s legislative auditor might be seen as just more of the same.

Minnesota has a mismatch between the entities that fund the construction of light rail transit projects and the entities responsible for constructing them,” wrote the Office of the Legislative Auditor in a special report requested by the Legislature. “We also found that the Metropolitan Council obligated itself to spend money it did not have, added or changed substantial work after the project was bid, and was not fully transparent about the project’s increasing costs and delays.”

But while the report brought no new revelations, having it all in one place by an independent auditor was sobering for members of the joint Legislative Audit Commission.

“It seems that nobody’s at fault, or everybody’s at fault,” said Rep. Rick Hansen, a South St. Paul DFLer who chairs the audit commission. “We have policies and we have processes and we have working groups, task forces, reports, warning signs and bells and whistles saying something’s wrong, and it still goes off the rails.

“We’re still stuck here in a corner where we can’t stop and we can’t continue,” he said. “I’m just kind of speechless. How do we get out of this box and how do we ever prevent this from happening again?”

The 14.5-mile project from Target Field to Eden Prairie was supposed to cost $2 billion and carry its first passengers in 2023 when it was approved by the federal government in 2018. It is now set to open in 2027 and cost $2.767 billion with the council not sure where all of the money is going to come from. Audit project manager David Kirshner described that 38% cost increase as “quite unusual” when compared to light rail projects across the U.S.

Audit project manager David Kirshner and Legislative Auditor Judy Randall shown at Wednesday's hearing.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan[/image_credit][image_caption]Audit project manager David Kirshner and Legislative Auditor Judy Randall shown at Wednesday’s hearing.[/image_caption]
While the audit attempted to find the cause of the problems facing the project and suggest remedies, its recommendations, if adopted, would do little to change this project, leaving commission members frustrated. Said Minneapolis DFL Sen. Scott Dibble: “I’m not quite sure where to start, there’s so much here to unpack.”

As currently estimated, Southwest LRT project costs per mile of track are comparable to costs for similar projects in millions of adjusted dollars.
[image_credit]Office of the Legislative Auditor[/image_credit][image_caption]As currently estimated, Southwest LRT project costs per mile of track are comparable to costs for similar projects in millions of adjusted dollars.[/image_caption]
Other members of the audit commission took turns bashing the council and the project. Republicans were able to reiterate complaints about using light rail as a mode of transit when buses are cheaper and more flexible. DFLers pointed to the OLA findings that the Met Council has not been transparent in communicating problems with budgets and timelines. Both suggested that the very structure of the appointed regional government needs reassessment. All could find sections of the audit to support their statements. For example, according to a presentation led by David Kirchner of the OLA:

  • “The structure of how the region builds big transit projects creates a mismatch between the entities that fund the construction and transit and the entities that are responsible for constructing them.” That is, the Met Council has relatively little money in the project, instead relying on the federal government, Hennepin County and earlier the now-defunct five-county Counties Transit Improvement Board. The federal share of $929 million is capped and Hennepin County has balked at finding what remains of the $500 million shortfall identified a year ago.

“The Legislature should create a framework so the entity that is leading light rail construction has some of its own money at stake so if it goes over budget, it feels the pain, it’s penalized and if it comes in under budget it’s rewarded,” Kirchner told the commission. 

Other key pieces of the report: 

  • When it learned in early 2022 that it no longer had enough money to complete the project, the project was faced with that dilemma cited by Hansen — it didn’t have enough money to end the project, because that would require repaying federal funds and restoring the route to pre-construction conditions. And it didn’t have enough money to finish it, either.
  • The Met Council bid the project knowing there were significant pieces of the project not included and not yet estimated. When it added a $90 million wall between its tracks and BNSF freight tracks, it did so as a change order rather than using a new bidding process.
  • The council did not hold its contractors accountable for repeated failures to provide an acceptable project schedule. But OLA also found that after the contractor blamed the Met Council for the delays, the Met Council eventually agreed.
  • The pre-construction engineering and analysis of underground conditions in the narrow — and troubled — Kenilworth Corridor where a shallow tunnel is being built did not identify soil conditions blamed for expensive changes and long delays.
  • The Met Council has not been transparent with the Legislature and the public about the project’s increasing costs and delays.

Wednesday’s report was the second of four planned by the legislative auditor. The first came out in September and laid out the history of the project — its design, politics, funding and timeline. The third that will focus on the Met Council’s oversight of contractors will come out in late April or early May, Legislative Auditor Judy Randall said. A financial audit will come out later in the year.

Met Council Chair Charlie Zelle, an appointee of Gov. Tim Walz, leads the 17-member appointed council and the agency staff. He said that much of the cost overruns and time delays were caused by the construction of the tunnel in the narrow Kenilworth Corridor. That tunnel was required to fit both light rail and freight rail in the same passageway and was a decision made in 2013. The previous OLA report described the technical and political factors that went into what was known as co-location.

“The large delay and cost overruns that we announced a year ago largely come in that Kenilworth Corridor, that colocation with freight rail on a narrow, 59-foot swath and not anticipating the risks of those soil conditions,” Zelle said. “That is probably the No. 1 thing that goes back a number of years before construction. This is hindsight. There’s no question.”

Met Council Chair Charlie Zelle, left, said that much of the cost overruns and time delays were caused by the construction of the tunnel in the narrow Kenilworth Corridor. At right is Nick Thompson, deputy general manager of Metro Transit.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan[/image_credit][image_caption]Met Council Chair Charlie Zelle, left, said that much of the cost overruns and time delays were caused by the construction of the tunnel in the narrow Kenilworth Corridor. At right is Nick Thompson, deputy general manager of Metro Transit.[/image_caption]
The size of the contingency fund, which was exhausted long ago, is set by the Federal Transit Administration based on a risk assessment that has since proven to have lacked all information needed. Going forward, Zelle said, the Met Council will do a better job of examining construction and budget risks on any new projects.

But he took issue with accusations that the Met Council staff wasn’t transparent with the Legislature and the public. He said the staff is in frequent contact with the FTA and Hennepin County and has reported regularly to the Legislature and to the full Met Council.

Zelle pointed to a chart in the audit that showed that the $138 million cost per mile for SWLRT is near the $130 million median price of other light rail projects around the nation. Another showed that while SWLRT’s cost overruns have only two peers — lines in Maryland and Virginia — both the existing Blue Line and Green Line came in at or under budget.

And he repeated his assertion that SWLRT has spurred construction along the route of multifamily housing and commercial buildings around planned stations.

“We still believe in this project,” he said, adding, “I believe in the competency — which is borne out in a MNDOT review — of this team. I think they’re doing an excellent job given the hand that they were dealt.”

Elected Met Council?

Dibble, the chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, used the presentation to make the case for his bill to require Met Council members to be elected by voters, not appointed by governors. The idea is also supported by House Transportation Committee chair Frank Hornstein, DFL-Minneapolis.

“The conversation that needs to be had … is with the Legislature,” Dibble said. “We have an opportunity to do something about this.” The Met Council is acting as it is designed to act, he said, based on its lack of elected officials and the insularity it provides.

“It works as designed but not as the public wishes,” he said. “If it is not elected, come up with a better idea. We need reform, we need accountability, we need transparency. Full stop. Bottom line.”

Hornstein said he will hear a bill on how the Met Council is governed Thursday. He will amend the bill calling for immediate election of council members with a task force to examine how to do so. But he said it is not a way to put off the issue but to reconcile different ideas from different legislators as to how best to change the way the council is run.

Zelle said he wouldn’t comment on how the Met Council should be governed but said Walz is “open to that conversation.”

Did she say “subpoena?”

Randall was asked by Dibble about the level of cooperation from the Met Council, detailing his own struggles to get information.

“The Metropolitan Council was not as cooperative as most state agencies are when we come calling,” Randall said. “We did ask for a lot of information but with every request, the Metropolitan Council requested an extension on the deadline. We often had to make requests several times.

“Ultimately they provided most of what we requested, but it required a lot of back and forth, it required a lot of follow up,” she said. While her office had hoped to provide a more-complete report now, it decided to break the reporting into parts in order to get some information to the Legislature more quickly. She blamed that decision on the slowness in Met Council responses.

“That being said, we did not issue a subpoena, and we have the ability to do that, but it did not rise to that level,” Randall said. Sen. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, said he was shocked to hear the OLA “was inches” from issuing subpoenas. But Randall said after the meeting that she didn’t use that term, saying instead that it is a tool that the auditor can use to get information but that she hadn’t reached the point of preparing such a legal document.

Sen. Mark Koran, R-North Branch, said the OLA is empowered as the sole performance auditor of the state and said agencies must be “extremely cooperative.” Of the Met Council, Koran said it is becoming less cooperative and less forthcoming.

“I find it completely unacceptable that the legislative auditor has to delay because of these continued delays,” Koran said. “We cannot tolerate that.”

Zelle said the OLA deserves transparency and cooperation but said “it is news to me” that they were close to issuing a subpoena for data.

Join the Conversation

26 Comments

  1. Join us now for a special edition of “Competent Minnesota Governance.” Put your hands together for today’s SPECIAL guests!

    Sen. Steve “I have yet to meet a person in Minnesota that is hungry,” Drazkowsk (R).

    Not to be outdone by that gem, please welcome:

    Rep. Rick “It seems that nobody’s at fault, or everybody’s at fault,” Hansen (D).

    Yeah! Woo-hoo! We love you guys! (Thunderous applause)

  2. Other than spending money they didn’t have, adding projects not paid for, being over budget, projects not being on time and then lying about it all, Southwest transit sounds like a typical transit program. I will be waiting for the pro transit apologists to say “more money, more money”. At what time do the “more money” folks say enough?

  3. I’m all for light rail and all types of mass transit. But if I remember right, this project (green line) came to light there were several route options but none rose to top above the others which means it was a forced decision. When it’s decided to proceed anyway, it’s a bad decision. Then when a group of people decided to file a frivolous law suite, it made the project a bit more suspect.

    1. Except that the reasons for that frivolous lawsuit (an incomplete environmental study that didn’t look closely enough and soil conditions and the water table) turned out to be right. It’s exactly what has been claimed since this route was chosen. And it’s disingenuous for Chuck Zelle to claim the pinch point of 59’ made things surprisingly difficult. It was known back in about 2014. The Met Council wanted to move people faster from Eden Prairie and chose this route because it was 8 minutes faster.

      1. Exactly, Larry. Thank you. The project would have none of the current problems — and I do mean NONE — if the Met Council had heeded the neighborhood folks who brought the lawsuit. And project supporters decided to malign them as NIMBYs. Lesson learned: Name-calling is a tactic to discredit people such that no one has to listen to what they are actually saying.

  4. Seems to be a little trouble with the math presented:

    2b Original budget
    14.5 Miles
    Equals the 137m per mile shown on the graph which implies that the graph reflects current estimate for the job.

    Really:

    2.76b Current estimate
    14.5 Miles
    Equals a cost of 190m per mile.

    Not the worst of the projects listed. Which cause me to ask what could be worse? This one:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_Extension

    Today’s Silver Lining & Ray of Hope.

      1. And there we see our life outlook differences.

        I see it as incompetence at the legislative auditor, “the truth teller” in this case, and their staff graphics person.

        You see it as a lie. Why would the folks trying to show the failures simultaneously cover them up? Open up your cynical heart to a bright day of trust in your fellow man and woman…

    1. What could have been better? Having this line go where there was already high density and need for mass transit and then just expand buses in the southwest area and done less harm to the environment. It sounds like the MET was so focused on adding large apartments to those areas and then use it to justify the SWLRT, it makes little sense. They could have used that money to subsidize more units across the entire metro area. And no consequences for the mistakes.

      1. It always seemed to me that the Hiawatha line was primarily about getting folks back and forth between downtown and the MOA and airport. And the fact that it spurred development in Jesse’s childhood neighborhood added his enthusiasm.

        And the central line about getting folks back and forth between the downtowns and the U of M.

        It seemed that the SWLRT was the first one that had getting folks from home to work as the primary motivator, problems aside.

      2. Actually, they couldn’t have shifted that transportation money to housing – the federal money is dedicated only to transit.

  5. This is a demonstration of lack of leadership and accountability. All the way to the top. When this is done it will cost $5 Billion. What a fiasco.

  6. Dibble and Horenstein have an appropriate answer, with their bill to make the Met Board of Commissioners an elected body. The process in which such large transit projects originate and then advance needs reform as well.

    1. These two don’t have a plan and they are more a part of the problem than they are the solution. They should be held accountable for the lack of oversight on the largest public works project in state history and removed from their chairmanship positions on the transportation committee .

      1. Having elected commissioners is a key reform, regardless of any previous sleepiness on the part of the bill’s authors.

        1. Wow! A near 1 billion dollar nap? That is one heck of snooze button.

          What do they care anyway? They just voted themselves some nice little cost of living increases.

  7. There are some options to consider aside from just rolling over for this incompetent Met Council. Sunk costs notwithstanding, the project could be halted and reassessed for downsizing. It could be resumed under the stewardship of a different Met Council. Or it could be continued immediately, but limited to easily completed construction. Or it could be completed in full, but with funding transferred from other projects that would be deferred in that part of the metro. Frankly, it’s disturbing on other levels, too – the terrible reputation our existing light rail already has for security and cleanliness as well as the inflexibility of rail in a time of extreme change in the nature of work and commerce are both reasons for concern.

  8. Shouldn’t the House and Senate Transportation Committee Chairs be held accountable for a lack of oversight on the largest public works project in state history ? A project that is delayed four years and is now $750+ million over budget .
    Hornstein is almost giddy in his desire to raise taxes to support transit. This , while the state sits on a $19 billion surplus and he appears to have no answers for funding a $750 million over budget project.
    He wants to raise taxes on gas , motor vehicle registrations and provide the Met Council taxing authority with a 7 county metro transit tax.
    Hornstein is a proponent of more unnecessary transit projects requiring increased taxes to support a system that has low ridership , is unsafe and requires the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax to fund $100’s of millions in annual operating losses.
    While some transit is necessary can we afford any more projects when there is no accountability for the problems we already have.

    1. The transit tax is to fund operations – which are underfunded Every. Single. Year.

      1. It’s a function of fare revenue from low ridership funding less than 20% of Metro Transits operating costs. The only reason Metro Transit can operate is due to the amount of Motor Vehicle Sales Tax revenue that it receives.
        Mass transit is over funded and under utilized.

  9. In a somewhat informed and certainly not expert opinion, why make such a large bet on such a boondoggle? The Blue Line was about providing fast and quality transit along the Hiawatha corridor – one with many businesses, homes, and areas that could benefit from increased development. Already the “South Loop” has plans to seriously urbanize and the Hiawatha line is an important part of that. The Green Line also did a great job connecting sports arenas, the U, and the Twin Cities.

    The SWLRT seems wholly focused on non-developed areas. It solely exists as commuter rail for suburbanites. Denver has a similar system. While extensive, it is used almost exclusively for commuting as opposed to the many multitudes of other trips people take (errands, seeing friends, going out, etc.). Its LRT system is not doing great.

    SWLRT completely skipped over Uptown, which would benefit greatly from the increased transit access – connecting the most bustling areas of the twin cities metros by rail. Why focus on commuters, people who are often hard to convince to take transit, when you can focus on populations who already use transit? Make the Minneapolis- St Paul – Bloomington area walkable and developed, and leave the suburbs to figure it out themselves.

  10. Will we have to wait until the Bottineau line is upside down or can we stop it now?

  11. For a little perspective: we spent 1.2 billion on a stadium for a team that plays there 8 or 9 times a year. Yes, other things are done there, concerts and such, but given the investment the 60,000 or so seats, on a day to day basis, rarely have butts in them. At some point in the next 1o-15 years we’re going start hearing about antiquated facilities, 20 years we’ll hear a push for upgrades or replacement. At some point we’ll be asked to fund an entirely new stadium or lose the, still SuperBowless, Vikings.

    On the other hand the Blue line that runs from Minneapolis to the Mall of America averages around 30,000 riders a day. That’s a stadium filled every two days, pretty much all year. Lets find out why this is costing so much, but remember in the grand scheme of things, in terms of usage, its a decent return on our investment that will still be running for many decades to come.

  12. Even this audit, scathing as though it may well be, has skipped over the real issue plaguing that so-called “shallow tunnel,” which is why at least two, far less expensive and invasive, alternatives to the tunnel were never given much, if any, consideration. First would have been a straightforward condemnation of a handful of townhomes on the west side of the right-of-way through that area that were built on the site of a former freight railroad switching and sorting yard. That might have cost $5 million to move those structures out, leaving a flat, compact pathway for construction of two LRT tracks, reconstruction of one freight track and plenty of room for hike and bike trails. The other option leaves the townhomes intact and simply single tracks about half mile of LRT through the area in question. The trails would have been a few feet narrower, but freight, transit and recreation could have squeezed through. Why wren’t these considered? Single tracking has been done elsewhere – Denver, North county San Diego and Santa Clara CA come to mind – and is not ideal, but it can work. Seems that raw politics is at play here – a few individuals or a powerful obscure coalition got the Met Council to throw money at the problem and caution to the winds. Where has the audit been of this situation? Sad.

    1. I believe the railroad declined the single track option, and ain’t nobody can overrule a railroad.

Leave a comment