Name: William D. Ankner, Ph.D
Position: Director of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation
Background: Ankner joined the DOT in late 1996 after serving as director of financial management and budget at the Delaware DOT for three years. Ankner also had a variety of tasks at the New Jersey DOT from 1990 to 1993. Previously he worked for the South Jersey Transportation Authority and also served for eight years on the faculty of St. Mary’s College of Maryland, including a one-year fellowship with the Federal Highway Administration.
Seifert Systems Invests in Energy Efficiency to Strengthen Operations
For manufacturers, energy is more than just another operating expense. It plays a critical role…
Learn More
Education: Ankner holds a Ph.D and a master’s degree from the University of Ottawa in Canada, an L.Ph. from St. Paul’s University (Ottawa), and a bachelor’s from Stonehill College in North Easton, Massachusetts.
Age: 55
Residence: Exeter
PBN: Three years ago, you projected that the I-195 relocation project was going
to be between $270 million and $342 million. How close to that mark are we now?
ANKER: We’re over it. The price of the project is going to be $440 million. But almost two-thirds of it was driven up from costs we had already accounted for but hadn’t articulated in the cost because we were accounting for it elsewhere.
The numbers that we had before were based on 30 percent plans that we had, which was based on things we were doing with the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). We have advanced beyond that situation today and we’ve done a complete analysis that also assumes a certain amount of value engineering that we were going to be able to do in excess of $120 million. We were successful in the value engineering but not to the extent that we had originally forecast, so that was part of the increase.
The other critical elements were that when we had given that cost, state DOT worker time was not included. As a result of the Big Dig (in Boston), they came out with a new format on how they get numbers. So projects like the South Water Street Riverwalk, which is part of 195 that we already put out for construction, weren’t included in our costs because there were dollars already there.
Have there been any unforeseen costs?
We didn’t anticipate the cost of the environmental cleanup. Our initial estimates were wrong because we had a lot more contaminated property than we thought we had.
The other thing with respect to real estate is that we went into the Jewelry District and as we moved some businesses out, we learned that the cost of reimbursement for relocation was so low that we were going to effectively put some companies out of business.
A lot of the companies couldn’t afford to move, so we took a proactive step and said, “this is not acceptable.” It is not our goal to put people out of business if we can help it, so we went to the federal government and set up a pilot program to test out what would happen if we put in more generous and more progressive ways of doing relocation. And our federal partners agreed, and it’s been a huge success, but that also drove up the cost of the project.
We also saw a significant increase in the cost of steel and some of the other materials that we were using. One of the biggest issues that caused the increase though was the real estate cost. We had done the reviews and assessments but they were five years old at that point. What we hadn’t anticipated was the boom of the housing market in Providence.
How close to the target are we as far as time is concerned?
We’re still moving fairly close to where we’re supposed to be. We just announced our first major construction project with the Point Street overpass, which is where we’re going to be carrying most of the utilities. The real estate is on schedule. You can see a lot of the demolition work that is going on in the corridor there. Within this year three other major contracts will be going out. The project is still on track for overall completion in 10 years.
How has federal funding been in recent years?
When I first arrived, the state was receiving about $85 million a year in federal funding. With the help of Sen. John Chafee and Sen. Jack Reed, the governor and the reauthorization of our federal legislation we were able to raise the level from $85 million a year to $156 million a year.
The funding has stayed consistent because it was a six-year program and it’s coming up for re-authorization next year, and hopefully we’ll be able to retain the levels we’ve achieved. That is going to be critical, and because of where the Governor puts himself in it I think we’ll be seeing a lot of those investments coming directly into fruition early on.
Where does the governor put himself in it?
The governor launched a Fix-It-First philosophy, which we’ve been implementing, and with the roads you can see an immediate improvement. Five years ago 49 percent of our roadway system was rated as poor or very poor. Now only 13 percent of our system is poor. On the bridges we were number two on having the worst bridges in the country, and we’ve crept up to number four. We’ve still got a long way to go but with projects like 195, which is basically bridge structures, 17 of our worst bridges will no longer be in the system. We’re in a position, along with the Washington Street Bridge and the Cranston Street Viaduct, to get rid of these bridges so in the next few years you’ll see a steady improvement, coupled with a preventive maintenance program we’ve introduced.
You mentioned the funding program coming up for reauthorization next year. Is there concern about the whole 195 project switching hands next year?
No, because of the way we set up the financing, we’re going to be allocating $35 million of whatever we’re receiving in federal funds to that project because we could not undertake a project of this magnitude in fits and starts.
Do you expect to be working for the new governor in 2003?
That’s not going to be my choice, (laughing) but if the question was if I’d like to be able to stay on, the answer would be yes. It will be one of the five candidates’ decisions, and if they feel that it’s in their best interest and the best interest of the citizens and I’m asked, I would be interested. If I’m not asked to stay on, it will have been a privilege to serve the citizens. I knew that this was a governor’s decision when I came here.
Do you have fallback plans just in case you’re not asked?
Well, one has to keep one’s options open.
You mentioned the cost of construction materials going up, in particular steel. How about the costs of other materials?
Pre-cast concrete is expensive, but I’ll have a better sense of what those prices are like with the Warwick Train Station project, which is another important investment not only for the mobility of our citizens, but also for the business community. Given the nature of the cost of that project, the governor set down certain tests that we have to show him before he is fully on board. He wants to see this happen, but within the cost we estimated. By mid-June we will know 54 percent of the construction costs of our projects, which will give the governor an opportunity to review that. If we’re on target we can move on, if we don’t we have to figure out something else.
Part of the concern for steel is in light of the tariffs that were imposed on steel. I don’t know what impact, if any that’s going to have on the steel prices. Over the last year steel was a little bit more competitive than it is now.
Whenever there is road construction there are almost always traffic delays. Tell me a little bit about what RIDOT is doing for motorists.
With the Washington Bridge, we’re dealing with a bridge that was never designed to handle 200,000 cars a day on average, and that’s what we’re having. We’re going toward a major repair there and building it in between two bridges.
We wanted to come up with a plan that would keep the same kind of capacity that we have now. When we did the Washington Bridge Westbound we kept the same number of lanes open, but we restricted their width to about 10 1/2 feet. Those were perceived as very narrow and people did not quickly move through those. They became even more cautious than they needed to be, but that speed and cautiousness caused capacity problems. We were backed up on a regular basis to Massachusetts in the morning.
We wanted to put out a plan to remind motorists that patience, besides being a virtue, is a necessity when you’re dealing with construction. We’ve also recognized that if there are accidents within this situation they can have even greater impacts on the overall capacity. In the evening rush hour, we require a tow truck operator to be there as well as increased police. If there is an incident on the bridge, that tow truck operator has to address a breakdown or accident and quickly clear them off. Its popularity was a surprise to me, because we only expected it to be used once or twice a week. Every day last year it needed to be used within that period of time. It’s an investment we’re making to minimize the impact of construction on a project.
You described the DOT’s relationship with the public; how about the DOT’s relationship with the city of Providence.
Initially there were some mutual misunderstandings as to what each of us were considering with the property in the 195 relocation. The city of Providence is obviously interested in making sure the development of that property is something that is consistent with what the city would like to see. The state shares that desire and in the EIS process, the state deliberately relocated the roadway path to be on the East of the hurricane barrier so it could open up and be consistent with the city’s apartment plan. We’re going to work with the city to make sure that sort of thing occurs. The city is also concerned because of the issue of taxes that wholesale could be given away to nontaxable entities, non-profits, colleges and universities, and they were hoping to get that development onto their tax role. To that extent we have a coincidence of interest on the part of the state and the city. We’re going to be looking for the highest value for that property.
It’s a little bit unfortunate that we have gotten into this discussion at this point in time because the issue we’ll be facing will not be until eight to 10 years. I think there’s plenty of time for us to work cooperatively to get a win for everyone.
