The La Cosa Nostra can be so expensive.

Maybe we can do the same here.

I'll go get the bats.

We gots some whackin' to do.

We should never build anything ever! Stop Sound Transit and the mayor better not even think about a light rail to Ballard and West Seattle plan. COST OVERRUNS!!!!!!!!!!

@3: Remember the part where voters approved funding, plans and contingencies that Sound Transit are currently following up on to ensure adherence to a strict budget and timeline?

@3) We should build things, including tunnels, when there's a viable plan for financing when/if it runs over budget. Until then, it appears you don't have a plan to build a tunnel.

City of Seattle: Founded 1869
City of New York: Founded 1624

Please dont compare the two, dont even bother. There is so many obstacles buried in Manhattan that they'll indeed get surprises that push the costs. Its like former mayor Nickels saying "Well these fancy toilers worked great in Denmark, they'll work fine in Seattle".

@5 And Sound Transit's plan for overruns is? At least with the deep-bore tunnel you have multiple levels of government involved that could hash out how to pay for overruns. If the current phase of ST goes over budget its going to be a pretty major disaster given they are on pretty thin funding right now. You are holding this project to a different standard than any other.

And let's be honest, if the state stepped up tomorrow and said they would cover overruns would you support the tunnel?

These kinds of projects are risky. Period.

@2: Start with the city council.

I demand a fourth public vote!

Oh, wait, they won't even let us have one ... even if it's legally required since council exceeded councilmanic bonding authority a long time ago ...

@7: There's a difference between overruns on a voter-approved project versus one with untested consensus. More than that, if you read the news regularly, you'd see that Sound Transit has scaled back its plans for the South King and East King subareas due to shortfalls in revenue.

Forging ahead on a risky venture without a reasonable go-ahead is a surefire way to upend the current make-up of government in more ways than one.

@ Will in Seattle

If you put it up for a vote, a simple Yes/No vote, here is what will happen. It will get voted down plain and simple. With no alternative plan, we spend the next 6 years on a new plan (it took the previous administration that long and still, no plan, and technically we could not come up with one, which is why the state decided for us), complete with environmental impact surveys. During this time, the state takes down the Viaduct in 2012, regardless if we have a plan or not and all traffic gets pushed onto I-5 making traffic even worse.

Any alternative plan we decide on, will still cost a few billion dollars, the state may or may not decide to help fund it and guess what, you put that up to a vote, that too might get voted down.

Seriously Will, you sound like a Tea-Bagger when you rant about this.

@11 I am honestly a bit tired of voting on everything. We have a representative system for a reason.

And what happens if the tunnel under the hill or UW goes over? How do you scale that back. Or do you just stop whining and accept that, yeah things could get fucked up, but its worth the risk.

So we're looking at a potential 40% to 70% overrun being sufficient justification to abort a project that's already underway. Hardly the astronomical overrun that occurred with Boston's Big Dig and entirely within the realm of possibility, or even expectation, with our own deep-bore tunnel.

And yet, to follow up my comment from an earlier thread (which Dominic was kind enough to break out into its own post), nothing could stop the Big Dig and nothing can stop our deep-bore tunnel.

The difference is not Democrat vs. Republican. It was largely Democratic politicians who kept the Big Dig alive, and it is largely Democratic politicians keeping our Seattle tunnel alive. And I can guarantee you that if Chris Gregoire and Chris Christie exchanged governor's mansions, their actions would scarcely differ.

No, the difference is simply highways vs. transit and the way the oil and highway interests have seeped into our politics and our culture. As long as we as Americans continue to view freeways as a necessity and mass transit as a luxury, we will continue to see our economy gradually, inexorably decline compared to the rest of the industrialized world.

@13: U-Link is a paid-for project within its current timeline with no current funding shortfall (checks are written already) and no final costs that will break the budget. A voter-approved capital project working within its budget and timeline with adequate funding and contingencies is not a valid comparison to the current DBT project.

In case you haven't been to Seattle in a while, station boxes and prep for tunneling are already more or less finished with the TBM expected to arrive soon. The first U-Link cars are arriving, the maintenance facility yard has been expanded.

And, once again, people actually have voiced that they really REALLY want something that will carry more trips than the AWV. Twice, even.

New Jersey badly needs that tunnel and increased train capacity to NYC. Christie is a fucking asshole who has been raising public transportation rates since he got into office. If we can't get a modern transportation system in place in the nation's most densely populated area this fucking country is doomed. New Jersey: a better place to be from than to be.

@12 we do have an alternative plan.

In fact, we have two. Read the DEIS draft. They're clearly identified - one is the Rebuilt Viaduct, the other is Surface Plus Transit.

Both are better than this vanity tunnel we can't afford that violates at least two (if not three) EPA regulations, and has half the freight capacity of the alternatives AND the existing Viaduct.

"And let's be honest, if the state stepped up tomorrow and said they would cover overruns would you support the tunnel? "

I am against the tunnel. BUT it has been decided upon by our elected officials so okay. So IF the state covers the cost overruns so Seattle doesn't have to take it all on the chin, I accept the tunnel. Absolutely.

Terrible decision to throw in the towel by a typical newbie elected official, a Republican in this case. Fucking stupid asshole.

This is the wrong thing to gloat over.

@15 How do you know what the final costs will be? What if the soil conditions are different? What if a machine gets stuck? What if the tunnel under UW collapses and destroys hundreds of millions in buildings and research. Sure its a bit further along (though only on this side of the cut as the tunnel from the stadium north is not started yet).

They are the same damn thing you just like one and not the other.

Not really. Different geological conditions. That nifty little ridge under you guys up there makes a lot of difference. We didn't infill things here, we dredged them up. Comparing pitted apples to oranges that were put into a blender after being pitted with a melon baller, really.

But, hey, giffy, nice try. We still can't afford it. And you still don't - and won't - have the votes.

8.5 miles for 3 tunnels under the Hudson and Manhattan AND expanding Penn Station as well as other details is exponentially more complex than a single tunnel with few conflicts through soil that can be studied carefully. I know, I know you didn't get to vote on it. Thank god our representative government works once in a while. You got to vote for McGinn. That's enough destruction for a decade, thanks.

The Nobel in Economics will be announced next Monday. 2008 Nobelist Paul Krugman wrote this today:

But American politics these days is anything but rational. Republicans bitterly opposed even the modest infrastructure spending contained in the Obama stimulus plan. And, on Thursday, Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, canceled America’s most important current public works project, the long-planned and much-needed second rail tunnel under the Hudson River. ...
Of the $8.7 billion in planned funding, less than a third was to come from the State of New Jersey... Even if costs were to rise substantially, as they often do on big projects, it was a very good deal for the state. But Mr. Christie killed it anyway.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/opinio…

This is not an example of cost overruns. This project is an example of the preliminary estimate, tied to the preliminary scope, coming in at one number, and then when all the details get fleshed out, the final estimate coming in higher. Kind of like if you think, "hey, I'd like to remodel my bathroom, I think it'll cost, um, $5000." Then you go hire an architect and get it designed, then you get some bids, and find out that it's going to be more like $15,000. "Oh, well, that would be too much," you think, so you decide, like the NJ Governor, to shitcan the project. "Maybe some new flowers out front instead."

As far as AWV goes, you'll know as soon as bids come in from the D/B contractors if you're going to be within budget or not. There's not a lot of opportunity for overrun claim by contractors in this procurement method, as design risk is shifted to the builder.

This is different from usual design/bid/build methods, where the state (or its consultant) designs the project, then solicits bids and awards the construction work to the lowest bidder. Overruns occur when the contractor comes back to the state and says "hey, this design is faulty, or we found something that wasn't covered in the design as it should have been. If you want us to do it correctly, that will cost us more than we anticipated." For the most part, this will not happen on this project, as the builder is responsible for design.