Extra Fizz: House Transpo Chair Says Legislature "Should Not Spend One Minute" on Tunnel Cost Overrun Issue

Sure smells like passing the buck, out of fear of losing momentum.
If we're going to build a tunnel, FFS let's figure out how to pay for it -in a worst case scenario- before hiring the world's largest boring machine. It's lazy politics: Represent the people, please, Rep. Clibborn! Worse, it's selling fear- "with all the things on our plates" translates to 'if we don't spend this session on 'important stuff', you'll be sorry!". And if you think we want to be sold fear, Rep. Clibborn, then go ahead and change parties now (or at least put yourself in the 'I' column with Droopy Dog).

full of win: We can’t simultaneously have a coalition so fragile that asking questions can kill the whole project and have it be a “done deal.” Those are simply mutually exclusive.

The idea of a 100% toll-financed tunnel is an interesting idea.

@20, party doesn't matter so much any more. We now live under the Louisiana primary system. Top two go forward, regardless of party, then have a mudbath in the general election. (I don't like this election system, but we make use of what we've got.)

I'd say that makes Clibborn a prime target to run a party of the future candidate against, with lots o' Seattle enviro money. Time to make it cost to screw Seattle and the environment!

@18, sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The majority of endorsements from LEGISLATORS went to Mallahan.

McGinn certainly outdid Mallahan when it came to endorsements by Democratic legislative district organizations, no doubt about that.

re: "The vast majority of legislative endorsements went to Mallahan."

Not so much true, iirc.

In the general election:

34th - McGinn - Sole. (McGinn/Nickels were the top 2)
43rd endorsed McGinn- Sole. (something like 70%)
46th - Irish Dual
37th - Irish Dual
36th - Irish Dual
11th didn't endorse.

Fine. We'll just focus on stopping the 520 enlargement then.

Every option WSDOT is putting forward for 520 removes the critical flyover bus stop at Montlake Blvd. This proposal is really bad for transit users.

So, the state would spend $4.5 billion to enlarge 520, and then have to retrofit it again a few years down the road to find space for light rail. Groan.

Contrary to the rhetoric from the automobile lobby, there are fiscal conservatives in many districts who are aghast at this price tag just so well-to-do eastsiders and Seattle downtowners can shave a few minutes off their commute. 520 can have all the necessary safety retrofit work done for a fraction of this price tag, and pay for it entirely through tolling.

@14, the state gas tax is not as "fungible" is suface option folks wish it were.
The state is replacing its road with state gas tax money, the city streets and transit are Seattle's responsibility, no matter the option. McGinn conflates the two monies when promoting the surface option. Fact is, if the state's obligation in cost is reduced then that money goes some place else in our state.

@12, I don't know that anybody ever expected McGinn to be more popular in Olympia than Nickels, with the possible exception of what appears to be his good relationship with Chopp. The vast majority of legislative endorsements went to Mallahan.

State money is *our* money, too. And yes, different buckets in any given year, but ultimately, fungible. Blowing the state's money on a ridiculous tunnel so we don't have to spend "our" city money on doing the right thing is ultimately not a sound argument.

Here is the WSDOT estimation for the tunnel. This number gets played with way too much by too many people that have not actually looked at how they arrived at 1.9 billion.


Current bored tunnel cost estimate Cost (millions)
Construction $944
Right of way costs $149
Preliminary and final design $118
Construction management and administration $118
Risk $418
Escalation (per Global Insight) $166
Total $1,913

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/Tunnel...

the bill that was passed includes 400 million more for this tunnel, and if they go over that, another 400 million in tolling.

The 966 million dollar construction portion of the tunnel has a potential to be off by 100% and still not go beyond the range of dollars available to the tunnel.

The tunnel is the least of my worries, it is all the other stuff thrown on top of it that we would be on the hook for no matter the option. The sea wall and city surface street "improvements", ongoing cost of transit (mitigated funding is temporary).
The state is obligated to replacing its road, that is it. The "surface option" would have a street remade, and I-5 improvements that the state would have to pay for. The rest of that option, the city portion, we would also be on the hook for, cost overruns.

wasn't McGinn supposed to be 'more popular' in Olympia than Nickels was -- wow they already don't like him and the council is turning him already too.

i guess the 'tunnel pivot' was just campaign spin.

You missed the sentence after “I don’t intend to touch it.”
It goes: "Because I destroyed my credibility with my colleagues, never mind the general public, over this amendment."

mmm, let's see, imposing risks of extra costs on municipalities where the legality of doing this is in question is an issue we can safely ignore....let's just start building the thing, I am sure all these finance and legal issues will sort themselves out in due course.

To be honest, the fact that the city is on the hook for state-level cost overruns is abhorrent. Whatever option is done, I want McGinn & Holmes to sue to halt things if they have to until that point is cleared up.

@7: every minute? hardly.

Regardless of the general budget picture, the House and Senate Transportation Committees will still be meeting and holding hearings to issue a supplemental transportation budget. During those meetings, someone will try to bring up the AWV, and Clibborn is doing the right thing to lay down an early marker that they won't be wasting time on that in the House. It would be nice if Sen. Haugen, who chairs the Senate Transportation Committee, had the foresight to do the same thing.

@3: Yes, they're separate funds, but my point was the issue of time for discussion. Raising revenue will, and should, consume every minute of this session.

Clibborn's looking at it from a state budget perspective, and a short sighted one at that.

Clibborn's right, and I support her position.

If people are so concerned about "Seattle" paying for cost overruns, there's a simple solution. The state will build a brand-new elevated viaduct, and will be on the hook for all overruns. "New urbanist" hipsters and the "design community" might cry boo-hoo, but the traffic will roll, separated from grade.

My understanding of the tunnel "deal" is that there is no statement about overruns. The actual bill has the overrun provision but legislators can't seem to agree if it means anything or not.

We can't simultaneously have a coalition so fragile that asking questions can kill the whole project and have it be a "done deal." Those are simply mutually exclusive.

Well the Transportation Budget is completely separate from the General Fund - there's a constitutional wall between them, so that's not a real issue.

That being said, Clibborn is right - there's just no sense in rehashing this issue.

Seattle voters didn't have any problems voting to force a 100% toll-funded Tacoma Narrows Bridge on people in Gig Harbor, who were overwhelmingly against it. For those same people to now complain that they might have to pay for potential cost over-runs on a project for which the state is paying the vast majority of the cost is insanely hypocritical!

And there's no way we should be moving forward with the project until we know who's actually paying for it.

Good. There's a $2.7 billion hole to deal with with only two months to develop some extra revenue to help plug it (or not). Not one second should be wasted on tunnel argument, even in the hope that such argument would prevent it from ever happening.