Scott Gutierrez reports:
A state lawmaker from Gig Harbor says he’ll make “damn sure” Seattle is held responsible for paying for any cost overruns if the planned deep-bore tunnel replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct goes over-budget.
Rep. Larry Seaquist, a 26th District Democrat, says if commuters from his district had to bear the brunt of the costs for a new Tacoma Narrows Bridge, then Seattle should cover the tab if the tunnel project goes over the $2.8 billion authorized by the Legislature.
“I will be among those who make damn sure that deal stands in place. We bought our own bridge, you can buy your own tunnel,” he said in a recent interview. […] “The only reason I voted for the tunnel bill on the floor was a “Seattle-pays” amendment,” Seaquist said. “We needed that protection. We built our bridge.”
Seaquist is a member of the Roadkill Caucus, a contingent of moderate Democrats who espouse anti-tax rhetoric and real-America-versus-urban-America divisiveness that makes them indistinguishable from Republicans on many issues. (See: building freeways.) So while Democrats technically control a narrow majority of the state legislature after this election, that’s a majority including Seaquist and a handful of his buds. Don’t expect those folks—including Senator Jim Kastama, who insists Seattle will pay for cost overruns—to come running to Seattle’s aid if (or when) the deep-bore tunnel runs over budget and the legislature needs to find some dough. If the project runs over, the legislature has to act or leave the project unfinished. They can tap the state budget, which has been running deficits every year with no end in sight, or they can use state authority to create a taxation district (like a stadium district or a local-improvement district) in any vicinity they like. And the Seattle delegation in Olympia is basically neutered—outnumbered by far—and in no position to stop them. The majority is stacking up to be these Roadkill Caucus Dems who want Seattle to pay, a handful of other Dems more worried about saving social programs than highway building, and Republicans who don’t want to give a penny to the heathens in Seattle. They have the determination—and a law stating their intent—to impose cost overruns on Seattle. Maybe I’m doing the math wrong here, but I don’t see a majority in the house or senate to make the state pay. And no body has even drafted a bill to make the state pay, as of a two weeks ago. The governor has said she’d veto a bill that makes Seattle pay—but let’s get real. Gregoire will be long gone in 2013, 2014, or 2015 when that bill arrives on the governor’s desk. It may be Republican Governor Rob McKenna by then—ugh—and don’t bank on him to come running to Seattle’s rescue.
The right wing is buttsore over the election so they’ll get their revenge in other ways!
Dom, is what he’s saying true, about the Tacoma area voters paying an unfair proportion of the bridge costs?
@2) They paid for the bridge with tolls, essentially. So the users paid it. But we can’t realistically add more tolling to pay for the tunnel. We’re already planning on a 30-year bond on the tunnel, paid for by tolls, which will cost up to $4 one way through the tunnel and divert half the traffic. Paying for overruns with additional toll fees would divert even more traffic–which is absurd–or require a bond that lasts decades longer, which is a waste of more bonding money.
what now, gregoire? how long will you cower before the intransigence of WSDOT? have you ever asked them to explain how 99 can have traffic lights north (greenlake) and south (michigan, 1st) of downtown, but “freight mobility” requires that there are none in town?
jsut retrofit the damn thing. or knock it down and build another. or just knock it down and leave the rubble in the street. I am getting so tired of this shit that I can’t think straight anymore.
Let me be crystal.
$10,000 per household – renter or homeowner.
That will be the final cost.
All for a tunnel you won’t be able to afford to use, with $5 to $10 each way tolls during rush hour and ZERO downtown exits that REDUCES freight capacity in HALF.
Kill This Tunnel, Governator.
What I would love to see is a clear, graphic, side-by-side portrayal of the costs of the DBT vs. a surface option. Especially if a surface option would leave additional funds available for public trasit expansion it is hard to see the advantage of sinking so much $$ into a tunnel that will be diverting traffic with tolls anyway.
I would be saying the same thing if I were Seaquist.
A tunnel which, by design, bypasses our city.
Tie the surface option to a longterm seattle-only transit tax and funding plan that could include the following:
Short term:
-Additional bus hours for underserved areas (incl. Ballard and West Seattle)
-off-peak freight priority lanes on portions of I-5 and the waterfront
-bike facilities upgrade
Mid-term:
-Upgrade of in-city Link facilities (elevating or burying Link on MLK and in SODO, additional DT access to DSTT)
-Completion of Streetcar network
-Fare reduction plan for in-city routes
Long term:
-Planning and execution of rapid transit system expansion (create additional trunk line subway or link-only infrastructure)
-Aggressive bike infrastructure construction
I remain confused why Seattle is paying anything for a tunnel whose only purpose is to ferry drivers from north of Seattle under Seattle to south of Seattle. Anyone driving into downtown Seattle will not be using the new tunnel. The majority of cars in the tunnel will belong to people who don’t even live in Seattle.
Unlike the Tacoma Narrows bridge and its district, there is no tax or business incentive to Seattle from the tunnel.
The financing for the tunnel just does NOT make sense as it currently stands.
@9 and @11 are correct.
This is why they won’t put it up for a vote of the Seattle citizens they propose to tax to pay for it.
This tunnel will never get built. The dildos that represent us will never definitely start or stop the project, and it will slowly fade away in development hell until we start the process all over again. Tear the fucker down and go with the fucking surface option and be done with it.
I would love to spit in Gregoire’s face. I loathe her with the intensity of a thousand fiery suns.
@12 I’m pretty sure we already voted against the tunnel.
@12/@14 Correct we said no and no — http://www.seattlepi.com/transportation/…
I’m becoming confused. Seattle doesn’t want the tunnel. Why is the state forcing the construction and payment upon us?
And LOL, unlike the Tacoma bridge there are many, many nearby free options to get to the same place as the tunnel would go. Alaskan, Western, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, I-5…
@13 actually, Chris is a nice person, even if she is selling us out for this tunnel. You’re correct @14.
PULL THE PLUG, GOVERNATOR!
Or Seattle will form our own State and you’ll be left with no revenue.
I’m a little confused by one statement of Dominic’s regarding the state legislature: or they can use state authority to create a taxation district (like a stadium district or a local-improvement district) in any vicinity they like.
I’m not disputing that the state can create a taxation district, but can the state actually then go and impose a tax on that district it created? Isn’t that a violation of the state constitution? There’s a huge difference between the state allowing a municipality or some arbitrary region/entity to impose a tax and the state imposing that tax itself.
I think they should put all of I 5 in a tunnel as well. Hell, let’s put the entire state highway system and interstate highway system underground!!!
LET’S BREAK THIS STATE AND THE ENTIRE COUNTRY!!!! And make sure SEATTLE pays for it all!!!!
Bravo, Larry! Good job. Herd the tunnel freaks into their tunnel and wall it up with bricks.
That said, I think Larry should take his GOP/TP boner (or is that “Boehner?”) out of its Democratic penis sheath and declare himself to be… are you ready for this?
A “Blue Dick Democrat!”
@18 man, that was funny. Almost spit up my latte.
@20: That’s only going to happen if the SCOTUS rules for the state in Gregoire V. McGinn (they would), and they’re willing to pave over several thousand urbanist protestors (the state won’t, but lots of red-WA residents would).
Man, think what would have happened if Dorothy had surrendered for fear of a little broom skywriting!