City Council member Mike O’Brien, a critic of the proposed deep-bore tunnel, plans to introduce five amendments to a resolution proposed by the city council earlier this week. That resolution would put off the signing of three contracts between the city and the state until next year, after two potential tunnel contracting teams release their bids. O’Brien’s amendments would put off signing any agreements with the state until certain conditions are met:
First, the state would have to fully analyze all the potential traffic impacts of the tunnel, including the impact of tolling, and committed to mitigate those impacts.
Second the state would have to give King County the authority to raise taxes to pay for additional express and RapidRide bus service to downtown as part of the viaduct replacement project. Last year, Gov. Chris Gregoire, then-King County Executive Ron Sims, and then-mayor Greg Nickels signed a letter that said all three parties “support efforts to obtain state legislative authority for King County to implement a 1% Motor Vehicle Excise Tax” to pay for an estimated $190 million in capital costs and $15 million in annual operating expenses.
Third, the state would have to identify all of the differences between the initial design-build contract and the contract that’s ultimately awarded. (The final contract will be hammered out between the contractor and the state, and will likely look much different than the initial bids).
Fourth, the Port of Seattle would have to solidify its commitment to spend $300 million on the viaduct replacement project.
Finally—reiterating an amendment O’Brien had proposed earlier to an ordinance signing the agreements—the agreements would not move forward unless the state legislature removed a provision in state law stating that Seattle-area property owners will pay for any cost overruns on the tunnel.
O’Brien just released his five amendments internally a few minutes ago, and says he hasn’t had a chance yet to ask his colleagues whether they’d support them. He says he hasn’t heard much support for the cost overruns provision (which only Mayor Mike McGinn appears to support), but says “I don’t know that people disagree with me” on the other four. “Since it’s now a resolution [not a binding ordinance], I think that lowers the bar,” O’Brien says.
Yesterday, Mayor Mike McGinn decried the council’s proposed resolution, saying that it failed to protect the city from the risk of cost overruns on the tunnel.
Tweet
Nice to see that O'Brien has finally woken up and realized has has a job (collecting phonebooks doesn't count). Too bad he continues to be an idiot about the tunnel.
I sure like Mike and have been totally impressed with his intellect and agree with him on 99% of what he is focused on. He is smart and a total sweetheart. His staff is totally GREAt! I am completely sick of fighting about the Viaduct though. I sure hope he does not get dragged under by this issue and his connection to McGinn. He is so much easier to work with than the Mayor and his office totally has it together (unlike McGinn's disorganized chaos of an office).
Sounds like he gets his strategic advice from the same people as McGinn; spin you idea to the media before actually talking to people with whom you wish to reach agreement. This will bite both of them in the ass, in time.
I miss what the urgency is for these amendments. Why not let the process move forward and see what the contracts and the EIS look like. It seems to be wasting capital and time. Maybe the bids come in way above the budget or with so many outs that even the state won't move forward.
Now, if I wanted to stop the tunnel, I'd commission a video showing what it would be like in the tunnel with a fiery crash – the Hindenburg humanity broadcast tape could be a template for the voice over.
Get Pat Cashman to do the voiceover.
Either Pat, or the Guy who does the Emerald Downs spots…
Mike O'Brien is doing exactly what those who voted for him expected, representing ALL of the citizens, unlike most of the Council.
Seriously. Is anything else going on besides the tunnel? Over it.
I am officially sick of the tunnel.
Pat O'Day.
Sweet complicity at Publicola:
http://crosscut.com/2010/07/28/alaskan-way-viad...
Mike and Mike, doing the job.
Sally Tom Richard Bruce Jeanne …not doing the job.
Seriously, why do we need nine of them if they can't even figure out seattle shouldn't pay for overruns?
let's amend the charter and reduce it to five of them.
I'd like to think I could imitate Don Lafontaine.
In a world where ordinary people face an extraordinary fire . . .
The tunnel questions are important. they are not resolved. Thanks to O'Brien for working the issues, and to PUblicola for keeping them in front of us.
I'll have to disagree with Councilmember O'Brien on one point: The $190 shouldn't be for more bus service. What happens to that bus service when the $190 million is used up?
The agreement was for transit capital improvements. That could include new bus purchases (which should be level platform for rapid, safe wheelchair boarding henceforth). It could include a down payment on a second transit tunnel, which is needed before West Link could be built through downtown, unless we want to make the mistake of running West Link at grade through downtown. It could include installing ORCA card/ticket vending machines at all downtown busstops. It could include rebuilding the George Benson Waterfront Streetcar, and continuing it out to the cruise ship docks. It could include sidewalk levelization to work with the level front door entrances on the new generation of buses. Maybe it could even be used to accelerate Link construction to stations where bus routes currently going downtown could terminate at that Link station, enabling more transit riders to get into and out of downtown with fewer buses.
On the point of getting the state to commit to allowing King County and/or ST to have additional local revenue sources to make these very useful capital infrastructure improvements happen, I don't know a good reason for the city council not to ask for that in the resolution. Given that the state would be asked for local revenue authority, not state money, why would the legislature not comply quickly?
I like Mike, too… but let's drop the hyperbole. It's not possible to represent “ALL of the citizens”, unless 41% of Mike disagrees with what he himself is doing 39% of the time. You dig?
Okay, I lied. I disagree with Council Member O'Brien on two points.
The second point is the Port's (or, rather, county property taxpayers') $300 million contribution to the tunnel. I'm opposed to the Port throwing money at this project, especially since the tunnel isn't even designed to help freight. The tunnel should be funded entirely by state gas tax, since only automobile drivers will benefit from it.
Besides, I don't think the Port has the money.
“I'm opposed to the Port throwing money at this project, especially since the tunnel isn't even designed to help freight.”
Actually, the position of the Port is that they will support any option that does not reduce freight mobility. Should the viaduct be replaced with any option that proposes closure, temporary or otherwise (and dumpingof traffic into SoDo), freight mobility will be impacted; this is because the Seattle waterfront is not operating in a vacum; what happens there affects the streets of SoDo, which is most routes between the maritime terminals, and the rail and/or interstate access. I realize that the “surface” supporters continue to ignore this vital issue that is important to Seattle's economic health, but it will continue to be brought up.
But yeah, “the Port sucks blah blah blah” is much more simple to peddle then the actual relationship between the Port and frieght mobility infrastructure.
are you still employed, Mr. City Employee?
Well, he had this crap laying about, waiting for a battle, but the council found a way to push this into the state legislation session.
Some head-scratching has gone on, the council gave the mayor what he wanted so why isn't he happy?
The council gave the mayor the opposite of what he wants. He wants to stop the tunnel no matter what. It is progressing.
He wanted to use cost overruns as the means to force a stop now. This depends on timing, and the absence of a way to solve it now. “Now” has moved to the state legislative session, it is quite possible that this will be resolved by the state.
What then? What does the mayor move on to when the state takes its responsibility back? He still hates the tunnel.
Well, Mike OBrien, and to a much, much lessor extent Dominic Holden, are telegraphing the next meme, capacity and transit.
Forget about cost overruns, they are moving on to argue for more transit to offset a road capacity (highway diet).
Finally, something we can all agree on.
The surface option has much more car capacity than the deep bore tunnel. The tunnel is a four lane highway, the surface option has a six lane highway, plus widening I-5, plus increasing downtown surface street capacity, plus $500 million to transit, for over $1 billion less.
The tunnel option is the most expensive; it's the absolute worst by far on car capacity and freight mobility (unless tolls make the tunnel empty to commuters – that hasn't been studied).
At a certain point, we have to understand that the only hope Seattle has for reconnecting the city to the waterfront and making a “waterfront for all” is with the inclusion of the tunnel as part of the overall transportation solution. Without the tunnel, we will not gain 9 acres of open space and the waterfront will become even more congested with cars and freight. Our focus on the cost overruns has become a red herring to the larger issue. The longer this drags on the more costly the solution will be. We need to focus on reducing the number of traffic lanes along with waterfront not increasing them.
That is hilarious! Seattlecentric thinking to the max.
The majority of the Legislators wouldn't vote for the tunnel without the cost overrun provision. The money for transit I don't believe even got out of committee.
McGinn and O'Brien can play a $2 billion dollar game of chicken with the state, but if they are successful the city will lose big time.
The money for transit was vetoed out by the governor because it was too narrow. It was a million bus hours for a limited area.
The state's joint legislative committee is looking at what the state's role could or should be in transportation issues.
These singularly prescriptive solutions deployed on a piecemeal basis is dumb (including west side light rail).
There has to be a policy set by the state and evenly applied.
If we were to focus on light rail, let it branch through the waterfront and up to ballard, and also send it down to Tacoma, it would function as an intrastate commuter rail. Ballardites can get to West Seattle and Tacoma can get to downtown. I'm sure we'd all appreciate an easier trip to the southern cities.
(This is not an official stance, just personal desire.)
Also, I love that Mike O'Brien spends about 60% of general council assemblies smiling. He's one of the few councilmembers I haven't met, but for some reason I find his presence on the council very comforting.
OK, now that's funny….
Does he have a second vote to move these forward? Or a third vote for them?
Light rail here is faux commuter rail. While I would like to be able to get around Seattle on rapid grade separated transit, I really have little desire to go to Tacoma, Redondo Beach, Fife etc.
The inconsistency of the local new urbanists saying we need to live, work and play in close proximity, yet they support spending huge amounts building a system designed to move people from city to city.
BTW Ballard to West Seattle will cost about $4B at $300M per mile (that's what ST2 is costing without the Bellevue tunnel) and I think much tunneling will be needed driving the cost even higher. The monorail needed a sketchy 40 to 50 year finance plan for a $2B budget. They had a 1.4% MVET. It would probably take at least a 3% MVET and heavy federal funding to pay for it.
Hum. That doesn't explain why every business that is involved with freight logistics, and every union that represents workers in freight logistics adamantly opposes the surface / transit deal. Could you explan why people that are most directly affected by this issue are completely at odds with your explanation?
Apparently I'm not allowed to link to Wikipedia's page for the Bronx cheer, which seems tame compared to some Ivan's posts, but oh well.
No matter how often you repeat this message, it still isn't true.
The tunnel option will also have a surface street on AW. I'm sure we can increase street capacity just as much with the tunnel. $500 for transit over what time period? The 1% MVET would raise about $100M per year and would last about 6 months before it was repealed.
Widening I-5 is just about impossible, but re-striping it might add a lane. I'm sure that will happen over time regardless.
If you have some link other than the DOA Western/AW couplet, please provide.
Anti Tunnel initiative to be filed this morning.
I'd much rather see positive initiatives.
http://www.scatnow.com/
Details, details.
“What's the Matter with Kansas?”
Jobs/$ are lower from the tunnel than from road imporvements and transit investments.
Who ever said that rationality always drives decision making?
The fact that the Port probably doesn't have the money is why I like that amendment from O'Brien so much. It didn't sound very convincing when the spokesman from the Port responded to O'Brien's question about their funding at Monday's meeting by essentially saying “Oh, well, we've got really good credit so we're just gonna restructure some debt and get the money that way.”
Personally, I can understand why O'Brien wasn't sold on that answer.
can't the Port just raise taxes anytime w/o a vote?
Tunnel opponents have proposed plenty of other ways to move freight, with most of them being faster for freight than forcing trucks to backtrack up Mercer to the tunnel's north porthole.
Why hasn't the Port taken up Mayor McGinn's suggestion of allowing trucks in the 15th Ave W bus lanes?
It's kind of frustrating to think that for such a progressive City, Seattle is behind San Francisco and Portland as far as mass transit is concerned, especially rail. Are we a progressive city or not?
We lost a golden opportunity back in 1968 by cannibalizing the Forward Thrust propositions. And now we will have to pay through the nose to transform our infrastructure away from the Eisenhower Era Freeway/POV model to something more consistent with the progressive way we see ourselves.
Talk about dependence on 'foreign' oil…sheesh…what about our dependence on highway funds? With that in mind is Mass Transit a step towards greater autonomy?
Light rail will expand, we have no choice. And Seattle will have to accept linkage with the outside world.
It is ironic. If taxes have to be raised to transform our transportation infrastructure, it could make this city less affordable and push out older & poorer long time residents to outlying areas that grew in response to white flight of the 1960's & 70's. There are probably more former Seattleites living in South King County & Pierce County than ever before.
With this in mind, it's a little interesting and a sad to see how people in Seattle can still harbor animus towards surrounding towns, especially Tacoma which has made some terrific strides, and basically treat them the same way Seattle was regarded by the rest of the country before it became a hip & trendy place to live.
Yes, and they will.
Not unless you are only representing the top 5%, 95% of the time. BTW, NOTHING is ever 100%, but that is what you should strive for. No Hype.
Because they are refusing to acknowledge the dedicated freight corridor that goes along with the Surface + Transit option. This goes to I-5 from the port, where the vast majority of trucks go to directly, NOT over the AWV. In addition, rail would not be impacted either.
It would actually be an IMPROVEMENT of what exists now. There is something else behind their being “at odds” with this.
They're no different than other people in other places who were convinced the sky would fall when a road structure was removed and replaced with something else. People fear change. People who have a lot to lose fear change that much more.