Writing as a tunnel opponent to “one of the few honest tunnel supporters” in Olympia, Carl at my alma mater HA has some good advice for state Sen. Ed Murray:
I’m asking you to lead the charge to repeal the cost overrun provision and kneecap tunnel opponents like me. Repeal the cost overrun provision and commit the state to paying for a state highway. Repeal the cost overrun provision and take away an argument that resonates with Seattle. Repeal the overrun provision and stem the tide of anti-Seattle nonsense that the legislature keeps pushing.
Now, a repeal of the cost overrun provision won’t be enough to get me to support the tunnel project: it’s a bad project and Surface/Transit/I-5 is a much better option. Hell, the shit rebuild option is a much better option, at least I get to keep my on and off ramps. But repealing that provision would give some certainty to the process and would mean that for once in God knows how long the state isn’t actively trying to fuck Seattle up. It would make it more likely that city voters let the tunnel go through.
If lawmakers in Olympia really believe that the tunnel is the best, most cost-effective option for replacing the Viaduct and they want to remove the final obstacles to construction, they’ll attempt to remove the punitive (and possibly illegal) cost overrun provision… especially those lawmakers who are already on the record saying the provision isn’t enforceable. They’ll do so not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it would help undermine opposition to the tunnel during the coming ballot referendum.
Unfortunately, doing so would also A.) Not fuck Seattle; and B.) Give Mayor Mike McGinn at least a moral victory, so Hell will freeze over before we see reason prevail in Olympia. But thanks for the letter Carl, and be sure to write back to Ed and tell him “I told you so” after the tunnel boring machine gets stuck in the legal morass created by voters rejecting the tunnel.
Doing so would also C) undo the explicit deal made at the end of 2008, where Seattle “leaders” (Greg Nickels, Ron Sims, and unelected folks like Tayloe Washburn) promised the state that Seattle would pay the cost overruns, since the legislature would not have done the tunnel without Seattle saying “yes! yes! we’ll pay!”
In other words, without Seattle paying the cost overruns, there is no deal and there is no tunnel. It is the keystone in the arch.
Nobody ever consulted with the voters on that deal, and its supporters now say that it would be The End Of Democracy if voters were ever asked to do so.
To be quite honest, I’m not sure legislators in Olympia really care if voters kill the tunnel — they’ll build the most effective and Seattle-sounding immediate project (signs point to I-5/Transit coming up as reasonable as it actually, you know, gets studied) and say they did something. Some will spin it as being “in touch” with voters or something.
Casting a wide net and suggesting any backlash for legislators based largely on the tunnel is probably a reach, if anything they’ll get hammered for things like cutting social services and keeping most tax breaks intact.
If you want to talk about the cost overrun provision, ask City Council why they try to either wish it away or say they’re doing something about it (while doing nothing). They’re the ones that will face backlash over transportation issues, depending on how stubborn they get. Heck, look at the rout during the RH Thomson/Bay flap. Nobody actually thought the sensible transportation activists and Sierra Club-types would get anyone on the council, but after voters got railroaded, well, Godden can tell you all about that.
At risk of enraging the mentally defective, the agreements that the Sierra Club and others are assiduously trying to overturn say that the State is responsible for “all costs” of the project. The cost overrun issue is a red herring. The real, unaddressed problem is the effect that tolls will have on downtown Seattle and surrounding neighborhoods.
Except, Goldy, the opposition to the tunnel has never been about cost overruns. It is the hook the Surface Transit crowd has used to hang their hat on to get support for their cause. If you disagree, look at it this way: will the referendum proponents agree to axe their own campaigns if the cost overrun provision was removed?
Yeah. Didn’t think so. The provision is a red herring then, and it is now. You and Carl are simply being dishonest.
@4 I agree that many people opposing the tunnel project will not cease their opposition if the cost overruns provision is repealed. But your claim that Goldy and Carl are being dishonest is defeated by the post on which you are commenting, “Now, a repeal of the cost overrun provision won’t be enough to get me to support the tunnel project…”
Carl’s point seems to be that the legislature can strengthen their hand, vis-a-vis McGinn at least, and probably with a good share of the people who are not firmly committed to a position.
@3 Have you read the statute? “The state’s contribution shall not exceed two billion four hundred million dollars.” RCW 47.01.402(6)(b)
Hmmmmmmm.
Of course lots of people don’t like the Tunnel and use the cost overrun issue as a hammer.
I’m one of them.
But in simple political terms, if the project becomes a pure 100% State-d project, then the only thing I can say it is a bad, terrible idea but at least my friends in Spokane will help to pay.
Goldy is correct — get rid of the cost overrun issue and you undercut a significant part of the opposition to the Tunnel
And an awful lot of Seattleites will be happy to say “oh go ahead and just do something,” even if the Tunnel is a dumb idea.
Yes, this makes a lot of sense. Water view property owners who would gain a windfall of hundreds of millions of dollars from a tunnel should not be subject to assessments in the event of a cost overrun. Just because property owners on the Metro tunnel picked up part of the cost of that tunnel doesn’t mean we should do THAT again. Gas tax payers in Moses Lake should pick up that cost.
Wow, you people are all nuts.
@5 – Statute must not very constraining. How do I know that WashDOT agrees? Because it signed a contract with a company to build the tunnel. So far as I’ve ever heard, that contract doesn’t say that if costs go higher than 2.4 billion then no one has to pay the contractor. The state signed the contract and so long as the contractor is doing work called out in the contract, there’s an obligation to pay whatever the project costs.
Simple answer.
Enact HB2100, WA State Rep. Bob Hasegawa’s Tax on Assets.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/53128508/HB-21…
This will not only solve the current budget crises, but will allow us to reduce unfair sales taxes, special purpose fees, and even business taxes.
@8 So private contracts trump state law? Good to know. WSDOT only has the authority which the WA legislature gives to it. Do you think WSDOT will write checks on money it doesn’t have?
Fucking Seattle ftw!
And thus end the Deathly Borrowed Tunnel dreams of the anti-Seattle lackeys …
Wont work, while 18 billion is fine for ST to spend on mass transit , tunnels, light rail, etc. 4 billion is OUTRAGEOUS to spend on a tunnel for cars. NIMBY groups like SCAT wont rest until the project is killed, even if it gets on the ballot and citizens approve the tunnel project.
Why do we need a tunnel for cars that costs twice as much as the two alternatives that carry 50 percent more cars and freight?
Well, Kinison?
And is … slower. As in 15-20 minutes slower for commuters.
@12: “Wont work, while 18 billion is fine for ST to spend on mass transit , tunnels, light rail, etc. 4 billion is OUTRAGEOUS to spend on a tunnel for cars.”
It’s an outrageous waste compared to better, far cheaper and more effective options (not even counting the guaranteed cost overages). Nobody cares about your astroturfing, Kinison.
@13
Re-built viaduct will be on par with the costs of a tunnel, partly due to needing tax breaks to the business along the waterfront that would face major disruption because theres this massive elevated highway being re-built that prevents people from parking under it and prevents from walking from 1st ave to the waterfront.
Tunnel = 6 lanes stacked.
Viaduct = 6 lanes stacked.
Surface Option = 6 lanes side by side.
Not sure where you get “Carries less traffic”, when its exactly the same number of lanes. The biggest problem with the surface option is the lack of actual room needed to put 6 lanes side by side. Somethings gotta go and thats either the exists from 1st ave, the parking and store fronts (most of which are gone because these businesses refuse to re-sign a lease not knowing whats going to happen with the tunnel vote) or the existing 2 lanes on the waterfront.
Also a problem is putting a 55mph highway next to the waterfront, which is one of many tourist destinations for Seattle, often a stop along the way for cruise ships heading to Alaska or California.
I think the biggest problem with the surface street option is that its all a dream., there are no studies, no planning, no funding, no estimates of any kind available that shows this is a viable option.