April 2, 2008
Capitol Roundup: Two Steps Forward, Two Steps Back
With the District's new baseball stadium having opened on time and within the estimated budget, it looks like the infamous Capitol Hill Visitor Center is getting jealous. But it looks like good news is on the way -- the visitor center may finally open this year.
According to D.C. Metrocentric, the majority of the work on the long-delayed project is all but done, and the main contractor is expecting a formal opening in October or November of this year. Though we couldn't get anyone working on the project to confirm this, the Weekly Construction Summary (watch out, it's a .pdf) for March 31 to April 4 notes:
With the exception of punch-list work, all major public spaces in the CVC, like Emancipation Hall depicted here, are essentially complete. Fire alarm testing continues and is still on track to be completed this summer. An approximate three-month operational “ramp-up” period will then follow allowing for operational policies and procedures to be refined and tested before a formal opening to the public.If the visitor center does finally open, it will do so after numerous delays and what seems like an open-ended budget. Originally slated to open in 2004, the visitor center's initial $265 million cost ballooned over the years and is now thought to be closer to $600 million -- just short of what the city paid for the baseball stadium. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) once called it "a monument to government inefficiency, ineptitude and excessiveness." Our only question is this -- will they have Ben's Chili Bowl in the cafeteria? Because if not, they may as well not even open the damn visitor center.
In other Capitol news, the Post is reporting that there's a little dustup on the Hill over Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Ca.) plan to modernize the Capitol's 18-year-old and grossly energy inefficient outdoor lighting system. The project to replace the 38 1,000-watt light bulbs that illuminate the Capitol dome is set to cost close to $700,000, and it could save taxpayers the $15,000 a year they currently pay in electricity bills. Republicans are balking at both the cost and the fact that the contract to install the new lights was given to a company in the district of Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.), the head of the committee that oversees such projects. Daniel P. Beard, the House's chief administrative officer, claims that there was no favoritism in awarding the contract -- the Philadelphia company just offered the best bid.
Finally, Roll Call is reporting that lawmakers are unlikely to retire the Hill's coal-burning power plant, regardless of how useless it really is. Originally opened in 1910, the plant hasn't actually produced any electricity since 1952 -- it merely produces steam and chilled water for Hill office buildings, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Library of Congress. It has, though, produced plenty of sulfur dioxide, much to the chagrin of District residents. And while Speaker Pelosi has tried to move away from using the plant, representatives and senators from coal-producing states have been none-too-friendly to the idea.
Image taken from the Capitol Visitor Center site
|
Wow. $250 mil to $600 mil in only 4 years? How much you want to bet that $700k lighting project hits $2.8 mil before they've even unscrewed a bulb? These clowns really know how the roger the boogly. For all we know, Congress and the bootblack have been rogering the fishwife in the crumpet shop the whole time.
Perhaps a good use of that power plant could occur after the elections:
W and his assorted toadies are finally brought to justice, and after an appropriate period of time on display in stocks on the lawn of the capitol, are sentenced to shoveling the coal into the boilers. Yeah, I like that image...we could add the Enron crowd and oil executives for good measure.
It'll cost $700k to replace 38 lightbulbs?
*sigh*
Congress doesn't even make it challenging for people to laugh at them.
And the Capitol Visitors Center has been a stunning financial debacle. Anyone remember how many hearings Congress has held on it? None that I can remember. Although Congress is quite good at bemoaning the costs of the project, it's all because Congress kept changing the parameters of the project and adding more and more crap into it. It went from being a cafeteria and screening center for tourists, to being a conference center, and additional offices, and additional meeting rooms, and more historical display areas, and emergency escape routes, and delivery truck entrances, and massage parlor for Morlocks. What a frickin' mess.
"Roger the boogly"? I am not sure I want to even know what that means.
I completely agree regarding the Ben's Chilli Bowl. I have not plans on visiting the CVC if there isn't a BCB in the cafeteria.
As for the lightbulbs, great idea. Let's just try and create a plan with a little less nepotism and cronyism next time. Seriously, Nancy.
"The project to replace the 38 1,000-watt light bulbs that illuminate the Capitol dome is set to cost close to $700,000, and it could save taxpayers the $15,000 a year they currently pay in electricity bills."
The $700k is only for the design phase, no installation costs are included. Why this level of design is required is unknown, presumably because the Post didn't ask. $700k is a lot for redesigning a 38-fixture system that already exists.. though it does sound like they plan to change fixture locations, numbers, etc.
Also, the change will not save $15,000/year, unless the new bulbs will be powered by fairies. The savings will be an unknown fraction of $15k.
It's perfectly ordinary banter, Squiffy. Bally Jerry, pranged his kite right in the how's-your-father; hairy blighter, dicky-birded, feathered back on his sammy, took a waspy, flipped over on his Betty Harpers and caught his can in the Bertie.
"The project to replace the 38 1,000-watt light bulbs that illuminate the Capitol dome is set to cost close to $700,000, and it could save taxpayers the $15,000 a year they currently pay in electricity bills."
$15,000 is what it currently costs per year to light the Capitol. Those upgrades would have to be reediculously good for it to "save taxpayers the $15,000 a year". More likely (and I'm sure you meant to write it this way) the upgrades would save a portion of the $15k. So, even if the new system is twice as efficient, you're only talking about saving $7k a year. So in about 100 years, this will totally pay for itself.
(and yes, I realize that there'd be less carbon produced over that 100 years, blah blah blah. But if this is really about the environment rather than saving on the energy bill, wouldn't that $700k be better spent on alternative energy R&D? This has the feel of a PR stunt, at the cost to taxpayers and to the "coincidental" benefit of a well-placed House member.)
According to the bulbman, 1000w bulbs are only $52.05 each when purchased in quantities over 12.
These must be some amazing light bulbs.
Going through the Post article, they don't really explain exactly what the "new technology" they're using for the lights is. Compact fluorescence? LEDs? Impaled pixies? CHUD flattulence?
Then again, this wouldn't be the first time the Post rant a sloppy story lacking such exotic luxuries as basic fact-checking.
OK, so CVC will be ready for opening in October. But what I want to know is when are they going to tear down those #$%^@ ugly-as-sin construction walls? That can't happen too soon for me.
When it comes to numbers and percentages, the Post - along with lots of other media outlets - sucks.
"Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) once called it 'a monument to government inefficiency, ineptitude and excessiveness.'"
He would have hit the mark if only he had switched the word "government" with "Congressional." I hate it when the same people who make projects more complicated and expensive then proceed to complain about how complicated and expensive they've become! You do know that all the office space that will be in the CVC has already been allocated to Congressional offices; it's been allocated for at least the past 2 years!
This is the largest expansion of the Capitol since the dome was built over 150 years ago, people; it's going to cost some money for it to look good and last. If you want to save money, they could have made the whole thing out of paper mache; but it would look like s**t and it would last until the first rain storm!
The cost of making the Capitol less accessible to average the Joe American is far higher than the $ spent on the CVC.
yeah, but if it were made out of paper mache, it would be much more environmentally friendly AND carbon neutral.
and it would cost five times as much.
journalists aren't good at math. i learned that in newswriting 101.
"Finally, Roll Call is reporting that lawmakers are unlikely to retire the Hill's coal-burning power plant, regardless of how useless it really is. Originally opened in 1910, the plant hasn't actually produced any electricity since 1952 -- it merely produces steam and chilled water"
Missed this one the first time around.. you seem to be implying that steam and CW production is "useless" or otherwise unimportant. However, the buildings do have to be heated and cooled. Currently, the Capitol Power Plant provides that function. While it obviously sucks that they're burning mostly coal to do this, it's not a system that can be easily replaced, nor can its function simply be transferred to the power grid (which as many of us know is powered ~50% by coal).
Also, sulfur dioxide is generally transported by the atmosphere. District residents are likely to be much more affected by the particulate emissions.
49 percent of the CPP's fuel is coal, 43 percent natural gas and the rest is oil.
I report. You decide.
I feel that we could kill a couple birds with one stone here.
Why replace the lights on the capitol? Why not just light the coal-fired power plant. You know with lighter-fluid. It could be periodically fed by coal and the illegal immigrants that ICE can't manage.
I just feel that the natural glow of a coal fire sets off the white of the dome so much more nicely than that devil's spawn, "electricity."
Sure there'd be environmental consequences. Eggs must be cracked, cakes must be made.
Let's kill another couple birds.
Let's use clowns for fuel. 'Nuff said.
The coal 'power plant' is an atrocity. it's the ultimate symbol to the power of Senators from coal states.
What's amazing, though, is that their symbolism isn't just empty BS - it's monopolizing stunningly expensive land right off the National Mall.
Talk about hubris and putting your own self interests literally above the interests of the entire rest of, well, everybody.
As for the $700,000 for new lights...... that does seem silly. But to put it in perspective, isn't that about what we are spending in Iraq every, say, ten minutes? And they only get electricity a few hours a day.
The Capitol Complex is gigantic and all campuses of that size require some physical plant. All land in Downtown DC is expensive. Your rhetoric is persuasive, but I think that you're ignoring some basic realities.
If the fuel mix is as MikeB states, then it's not too different from the overall fuel mix used across the country. Actually, if you remove nuclear, the CPP is doing better than the national average in terms of %coal.
Nuke-u-lar!
Nuke-u-lar!
Nuke-u-lar!
I heard a rumor that the real reason behind the cost inflation was the hush money associated with covering up the morlock colony the dig uncovered. Very expensive that. Not only did the troglodytes get a lifetime supply of Man Tan and Wesson Oil, but they also demanded an all-access pass to Jessica Cutler.
Fortunately, she was looking for work anyway.
Because I'm a geek, and we use this data at my office. Here's the US generation mix, according to EIA (for 2006, if I recall correctly).
US top 5 generation
Coal 49.0%
Natural Gas 20.0%
Nuclear 19.4%
Hydroelectric 7.0%
Renewables 2.4%
Other 2.3%
don't forget to mention the over $300M planned to be spent on upgrading the steam and chilled water distribution system in the next 4 years that will probably be completely replaced in 10 years.
Um, how is it exactly that I wind up paying PEPCO close to a thousand dollars a year for my measley apartment, while lighting the whole bloody Capitol dome costs $15K?? They must give significant discounts for large bulges.
$15,000 = the savings to the taxpayer each year on using this new lighting system. It isn't the cost to use.
"The Capitol Complex is gigantic and all campuses of that size require some physical plant."
What do other govt facilities use? Like the Pentagon or other big facilities?
I'm not power plant expert, but I find it odd that the Capitol, Supreme Court, and LOC need a power facility that big, especially if it's really not producing any electricity.
Well don't expect the plant to go anywhere soon, it is more symbolic now than anything for many of the members of congress!
Also when we spoke to the folks at CVC they confirmed the end of the year opening date, so at least the project will be open by 2009!
DCMetrocentric.com
"I find it odd that the Capitol, Supreme Court, and LOC need a power facility that big, especially if it's really not producing any electricity."
You simply need lots of energy to heat and cool buildings, whether it comes from grid electricity or on-site power generation (power != electricity). Note that it goes all the way up to Union Station. There are over 20 buildings serviced by the system. I don't think it's really that big for what it's doing.
The Pentagon has a similar heating/chilling plant, in the area bounded by Rt. 110 and 395. It just doesn't use coal (was replaced in 1998). It appears that the Pentagon mainly uses natural gas. They also have an on-site waste incinerator.