Last week I posted a commentary suggesting that “It’s Gov. Gregoire who needs to take the lead in pulling the tunnel cost overrun provision,” not Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn.
My premise was simple. If, as the Governor suggests, Mayor McGinn’s focus on the cost-overrun provision “is just something to hang his hat on” in his effort to scuttle the Big Bore tunnel, and if the cost-overrun provision is as unenforceable as she says it is, and if the Governor is really promising to sign a bill that would remove this provision… then why not just take the lead in doing exactly that, thus swiping the Mayor’s hat peg?
I’m on record as opposing the tunnel, but if the goal is to move forward with this project as quickly as possible, I argued, the Governor and the legislative leadership should just swallow their pride and promise to push through what she claims to be a mere symbolic legislative fix. It was, I thought, a pretty damn constructive proposal coming from somebody on the losing side of the tunnel debate. But you wouldn’t know it from the comment thread, which proved particularly vitriolic and disinformative even by HA comment thread standards.
Indeed, this thread is pretty much emblematic of the “Fuck Seattle” attitude that often seems to dominate political discourse throughout the rest of state. “I hope Seattle fucking chokes on the cost overruns,” one commenter writes, while another insists that Mayor McGinn deserves “a taste of his own medicine.” While I magnanimously proposed a way to politically move forward, my critics clearly remained focused on extracting retribution.
Ah well. So much for attempting to be the voice of reason.
Ironically, in objecting to the advisory vote in which Seattle voters rejected both a tunnel and a rebuild, one of my most vocal critics in the thread inadvertently makes a pretty damn strong case against sticking the city with the cost-overruns:
Get it straight. Highway 99 is not the property of the city of Seattle. It is a STATE FUCKING HIGHWAY. It happens to run through Seattle, and through a hell of a lot of other municipalities. One hell of a lot of people depend on Highway 99 who are not Seattle residents, and their tax dollars damn sure support that highway.
The state built it. The state maintains it. The Legislature controls the purse strings…
Okay, it’s a “state fucking highway.” Great. Then let the state pay for it. Including any cost-overruns. Especially considering that, unlike the existing Viaduct, the new deep bore tunnel will include no exits or onramps.
Did you hear that folks? No exits or onramps! This is a tunnel explicitly designed not to serve downtown Seattle, but rather folks seeking to drive through it, and because of the lack of exits comparable to those northbound at Seneca and Western, and the rush hour traffic backups they create, the tunnel will be much better suited to this particular purpose than any of the other proposed options.
So don’t give me this shit about how if Seattle wants its “gold-plated tunnel” Seattle taxpayers should have to pay for it. Yes, the removal of the existing Viaduct will open the waterfront to redevelopment, but the much cheaper surface/transit option would have done same while providing far better ingress and egress to downtown Seattle than a deep bore tunnel with no exits.
In fact, the only people who will benefit from the tunnel over the surface/transit option will be those seeking to drive through downtown Seattle without being slowed down by the street traffic above.
So yeah, Highway 99 is a state highway, and the state rejected the less expensive surface/transit option in favor of the deep bore tunnel so as to better meet the needs of the thru-traffic driving on it. You win some and you lose some. I can live with that. And I’m guessing, in the long run, so can the Mayor.
But the Governor and the Legislature are making an awfully big mistake if they insist on giving McGinn no political exit.
Hear hear! I am grateful to finally have a Mayor who has as his primary concern the interests of the citizens of Seattle. If the state has it’s way, we will be bankrupted by cost overruns for a tunnel that WE rejected. As you’ve correctly noted, twice, the only thing standing in the way of the tunnel at this point is the Governors own intransigence. Screw her if she thinks she can win an election w/o Seattle.
For all I care, they can start the tunnel north of the Seattle city limits and run it to the south of the city limits with no exits or entrances. Hell, I’d vote to tear down the exit ramps on I-5 if it would keep the riffraff from south-county out
The governor’s and the legislature’s position on this is ridiculous. It’s a state project. It needs to be funded and managed by the state. If the risk of overruns is too expensive with a tunnel, then they need to find another option.
If you want a simple solution to funding overruns I’d suggest the state plan on tolling the tunnel if it costs more than they can afford.
But the debate is ridiculous.
It is possible that McGinn has simply entered “wingnut/gadfly mode”; and isn’t it common practice to put the onus on said wingnut to pursue the changes if they are indeed such “no brainers”?
You are lifting commentary from the cesspool to bolster your argument? That’s pretty weak. Remove the virtiol of the people in the thread calling BS on your argument, and we will see in the raw some rather good points.
Personally, I am tired of the “Fuck You” attitude coming from the Urbanist camp who thinks that a great city can be created through developer profits and real estate bubbles, and not through many decades if not centuries of a stable comminity that isn’t driven from neighborhood to neighborhood and out of town, chasing affordable rents.
On American cities, it was Satre who nailed it; just temporary encampments with no sense of history of continutity, and the local Urbanist Domestic Neolibs do not wish to deviate from that trajectory…
@4: Your logic is weak. Why is it a “wingnut” view to not want the city to be on the hook for state overruns for a state project that the city has no control over? If anything that is a practical and conservative view.
So you argument is not just weak – it is non-existent.
You really got me with the “no exits or on-ramps” argument. Makes a lot of sense.
I’d like to see the costs of the overrun spread equally among the counties of WA state, which might be a fair way for King Co to get soime of the collars back that we send to the other counties at all other times.
Or, how about splitting “cost overruns” with the contractor? Cost-plus contracts are just inviations to be robbed.
@4: But I do credit you for the Sartre reference for “No exit”. I was waiting for that…
No, #5: Goldy says the onus is on the Guv to change the language. I say it is on McGinn. Yours is a red herring.
Yes, it’s a state highway. Even as a resident of Everett, I have an interest in it remaining a thoroughfare, if for no other reason that it relieves traffic off of I-5 when I have to get to the airport. And the Mayor does have a point that Seattle shouldn’t be responsible for cost overruns on a project over which it has so little control. The legislature threw the cost overrun provision in only to get some votes from the anti-Seattle faction, which would love nothing more than to see Seattle get stuck with a big bill – which they would then blame on Seattle anyway.
But are there NO entrances/exits to 99 within the city limits? It’s a bit disengenious to say that Seattle receives NO benefits only because the downtown core doesn’t have it’s own dedicated entrances/exits. One of the problems with the street/transit option was that it turned 99 from a thoroughfare into a local street through downtown Seattle, which would create backups in both directions during rush hour.
What everyone is trying to avoid is an apportionment system which determines the percentage of benefit Seattle receives from the Viaduct replacement, and apportions costs appropriately. Nobody in Olympia, on either side of the aisle, wants to be caught agreeing to any specific percentage.
I’m thinking if the locals and the state can’t get together and figure out how to build a project within a reasonable time frame the project should be scrapped. What ever was going to be done should have been done by now.
Within the Seattle city limits Hwy 99 should become the property of the city of Seattle to do with as they please w/o any state funding.
You got that right Goldy–
And do you have even the slightest clue why??
The reasons are numerous including but not limited to Growth Management Act which hamstrings rural Washington, reckless tax-and-spend track record, and a bunch of Kooks that worry about plastic bags bottled water when the economy is tanking! The list goes on & on.
1. worf spews:
Seeing as though Gregoire is trying to escape the mess she created with overspending by getting ObaMao to appoint her to another job she is equally unqualified for….I suspect she would be laughing real hard at your comment since she is done running for office.
# 6: Yes, cost-plus contracts are to be avoided, and these days are usually only used in military procurement contracts where the technology is so new, or the requirements so fluid, that neither side has the time or ability to accurately predict the amount in advance. To my knowledge, it was first created during the early days of U.S. involvement in WWII, as an expedient to rapidly ramp up production of war goods when there wasn’t time to come up with bids. The practice continued through the Cold War as weapons systems (aircraft, submarines, etc.) became more and more complicated. Sometimes the military would simply want the contractor to find a way to do a specific goal, with no idea how that would be done. The contractor at that point has no choice but to work on a cost-plus contract in that instance.
But cost overruns are still a fact of life, even under carefully bid jobs. Contractors are careful to make sure that the contract upon which they bid carefully lays out exactly what they will do, and no more. So any unanticipated problems arising during construction become subjet to “change orders”, which is where the bulk of the overruns occur. I’m running into that on the re-siding of my house, where every contractor submitting bids wants a contract which covers the specifics of actually installing the siding, but has rather broad provisions for “cost-plus” if it encounters deteriorated plywood underneath the existing siding which needs to be replaced, etc.
@12: Overspending?
Please stop lying cynical – you sure are not religious. The state had a DROP in revenues due to the Bush recesssion and is obligated to pay for most of the budget.
When you lie – it makes you look like even more of a fool.
@12 Mr. Cynical on 06/07/2010 at 12:30 pm
“Seeing as though Gregoire is trying to escape the mess she created with overspending by getting ObaMao to appoint her to another job”
Of course this is absolute nonsense, and this clown spouts more nonsense than most. But it boggles the mind how people supposedly interested in public policy just make s#it up or find another opinion and cite it as fact to make a point.
@11: Klynical: If I recall, you don’t even live in this state – so shut the hell up carpetbagger.
@4 tpn: did you forget your own words?
You are saying that McGinn is a wingnut for being fiscally responsible?
I just called you on your logical fallacy.
Your lousy logic is the red herring.
@6
good luck signing that contract.
@17? McGinn doesn’t give a crap about fiscal responsibility. The mismanagement of his administration proves it. It’s a pet issue, nothing more, which mobilizes his base, the only reason he was able to squeak by in the election. That is what make him a wingnut; he harps on his Pet Issue while producing nothing more then press releases, but zero policy whatsoever. His entire administration relies on no resolution to the Viaduct question.
If he was sincere, he would be pursuing legal protection via his city attorney. That would be the most effective and pragmatic way to protect the city from any kind of risk. But you don’t get much grandstanding to your base by doing that do you?
Seattle, meet Mayor Burgess. Power abhors a vacum.
RHP, not sure what world you live in, but cost-plus and g-max contracts are very common in the commercial construction industry..
11. Mr. Cynical
So says the guy who wants the state to throw MORE people out of work in WA “when the economy is tanking.”
rhp–
NO ONE is going to bid on an airtight Cost-plus contract for a Tunnel on the Seattle Waterfront. That is foolish rhp. Even if it is advertised as “fixed price”…there are always provisions for change of conditions, State directed Change Orders etc.
The Tunnel is going to cost a fortune…and reputable contractors will never roll the dice on something as iffy and controversial as this.
In the end…it will be a cost-plus contract (now matter how the WSDOT tries to portray it).
10. Michael
See for yourself. Seems to me that it’s all planned out and proceeding according to schedule:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/
I aqm beginning to think that the deep-bore tunel makes sense. One thing it does is preserve the current through traffic on the viaduct/surface streets while the replacement work proceeds. In other replacement plans, including the ‘viaduct rebuilding’ and the surface streets options, traffic will face significant disruptions, rerouting, and undercapacity for in some cases long time frames.
I am a bit disappointed that the planned tunnel is only 2 lanes each direction.
Goldy
Right on!
The deep bore is a STATE solution.
Seattle ought not to participate at all and instead to use its resources to create a grand boulevard over the Tunnel .. a la San Fran’s waterfront.
Imagine a boulevard running from the Ballard Bridge to the intersection fo first Ave and the I5 ramp to West Seattle.
Next, put light rail on this SURFACE street!
The gain in real estate values along Elliot, in Ballard, on First, AND in West Seattle would more than pay the costs.
The tunnel would easily handle the relatively small amount of traffic (estimated to be 20% of total) that now goes through Seattle as opposed to into and out of Seattle.
Best of all, the new Boulevard would be prime property for naming rights. Given their contributions ot the NW … why not name it after Mat and Bill Gates Sr?
I am only half joking but a boulevard called the Gates Drive has more than a little semantic charm.
Now let’s talk about those massive highway projects not in Seattle…
The U.S. Route 395 North Spokane Corridor or NSC is a $2.2 billion (2009 dollars) limited-access highway project in Spokane…the first plans for the freeway were released in 1956…
I-5 Columbia River Crossing
The Oregon and Washington state departments of transportation are jointly studying how to replace the bridge. Initially, the estimated cost for a replacement bridge was around $2 billion, but that number has climbed steadily to around $4.2 billion.
It’s simple: the entity that controls the project should pay for it. If the state wants to stick the city with a tunnel, then it can pay for the whole damn thing. If they don’t want to pay for it, they should turn over decision-making and budgetary control to the city of Seattle. If it was just the city making the decision, without any state money, the viaduct would come down with no tunnel or elevated replacement. It’s simply not in the city’s budget to pay for something like this.
@26
Re: the I-5 crossing
Folks in Vancouver want a nifty new bridge so they can zip into Oregon to buy stuff without paying sales tax and leave the cost overruns to the rest of the state’s taxpayers.
@23
I’d say I was happy to be proven wrong on this, but it shouldn’t take over a decade to get 2 miles of highway replaced and we shouldn’t still be arguing about how to pay for it.
@13 “if it encounters deteriorated plywood underneath the existing siding which needs to be replaced, etc.”
That’s what we call a “hidden condition”. Say the bid documents assumes the plywood is good. If it’s found to be deteriorated, it’s not the contractor’s fault. The change order process follows per contract. If you still don’t know the extent of existing damage, cost plus might be the way to go. If it’s decided to replace all of the plywood, a fixed price or an hourly not-to-exceed price might be submitted, depending on contract language. You can imagine what “hidden conditions” the tunnel project might present. One would have to review the actual tunnel RFP and bid documents to know how the tunnel contract is set up. As for anyone who hasn’t actually read the RFP and contract documents and tries to tell you what’s what? Well, that’s on the same level as Puddyfacts. It’s just BS.
@20 Hey, Max!
@26 The NSC is a boondoggle that a big chunk of Spokane doesn’t even want. We need to put nails in that things coffin and bury it deep.
Is the issue here that it’s “the City” rather than “users” of the tunnel that are responsible for the cost overruns?
I ask because in the case of the Narrows Bridge there isn’t a local government on the hook, but tollpayers certainly are. In fact unlike Seattle we got zero support from state transportation fund for our mega-project.
Perhaps that’s a place where the deal can be re-opened for an intelligent amendment. It was a rather slapdash and last minute thing anyway so I guess corrections are to be expected.
Wasn’t the new Narrows Bridge a cost plus deal? That seems to have gone fairly well. What about the new Hwy. 16 I-5 interchange? That seems to be choogling right along.
Here’s another one for you. “Owner betterment'” Let’s say you had an architect prepare bid docs for your siding replacement. The architect tells you that the plywood’s probably good. Later it turns out it isn’t and it all has to be replaced. You get pissed at the architect and want him to pay for it. He tells you to fuck off, that you received “owner betterment” from having the plywood replaced. That’s a way of saying that for the cost of the change order to replace plywood, you now have the plywood on your wall. You should pay for it. It’s not like the architect can take it home with him. But a point you could raise is that you’re paying more for it as a change order than you would if it was included in the original bid. With that, you arm wrestle. Now, let’s say the architect calls for new sheathing but it’s the wrong sheathing that’s specified and yet gets installed anyway. Now it has to be ripped off and the right sheathing installed in it’s place. Rather than the owner paying twice to get it right once, it would be fair to turn to the architect and say, “I received no betterment for this change order, I want you to pay for it” If this one’s the architect’s fault, it’s fair to have him pay for it. We have insurance coverage for this kind of mishap.
Are these cost plus, not-to-exceed (max price) contracts we’re talking about or are they cost plus, open ended contracts (no max)? Big diff. Does anybody here really know?
29. Michael
Well, I guess I would respond that it matters very much which 2 miles of highway you pick. If this was 2 miles of highway between Colville and Chewelah it might have very well been replaced a decade ago. Heck, or never replaced at all because it’s not important enough.
But this is one of the central transportation corridors in the state, it is tied up with seawall concerns, it requires the consensus of the Port of Seattle, KingCo, City of Seattle, and WA state. It also concerns the potential for horrendous traffic tieups in the state’s largest city and trade center, impacts port cargo, is being built (whatever solution) on or in substandard landfill, and so on, and so on.
Yes, we have a reputation for dithering here. But this is one of the most complicated projects you could imagine for just “two miles of highway.”
So many individual and contradictory political outcomes riding on different results; the inevitable result of governing from the campaign trail that politicians never leave behind… McGinn as the leading example.
@36
Seattle’s hardly the only place in the state where dithering goes on. Take a look at the saga of the LeMay museum in Tacoma for another example or the N. Spokane Corridor mentioned above. At some point you have to either do something or pull the plug move on.
@30
Hiya Steve!
@35
good question.
@19 –
http://slog.thestranger.com/sl.....ced-to-pay
fucking idiot
If its a gmax or cost plus job, there is usually a generous contingency fund built into the proposal to protect the contractor(since with these projects, the design and engineering is not complete)…
A lump sum contract would typically be at a smaller amount, but the contractor is protected by the bid/contract documents which help him recover change order costs for changes in project scope originating from the owner or design team- or unforeseen circumstances
Either way, a smart contractor is going to be protected from eating cost overruns that stem from changes in scope.
@38
I thought the Lemay Car Museum was a private venture.
Cascadian @ 27:
Nice of you and Goldy to miss my entire point. The state isn’t trying to force a tunnel on Seattle. The state didn’t want a tunnel. The state wanted to replace the Viaduct, and retain the downtown on- and off-ramps. People in Seattle (most certainly including Nickels) said no way, no way in hell. That’s how the deep-bore tunnel came about.
Goldy is correct that this idea came from the Discovery Institute. That’s their wet dream, to toll all highways so that the riff-raff will be forced onto public transit, leaving highways for the rich. It’s amazing how that position is almost identical to that of the “new urbanist” Green Taliban, which loathes the entire notion of personal motorized transportation.
And Goldy, quit your bullshit about the “less expensive surface option.” Maybe in terms of construction costs, the “surface option” is less expensive, and maybe it’s “less expensive” if you think people’s time spent getting from place to place is worth less than “it spoils my view.”
The poor schmucks who get stuck in traffic using this abominable “surface option” won’t think it’s “less expensive.” But you don’t give a shit about them. You never have.
Even Mike McGinn told me, in front of witnesses, that a rebuilt Viaduct would be preferable to a deep-bore tunnel, if those were the only two alternatives. I’m waiting for him to deny he said that.
We in Seattle already voted against having a Billionaire’s Tunnel.
If the state wants to cram it down our throats, either put this Tax on Seattle up to a public vote of the Citizens of Seattle – where it will fail resoundlingly – or get reasonable and come back with a cheaper Rebuilt Viaduct or Surface Plus Transit option.
Either of those options have TWICE the freight capacity, HALF the global warming emissions, and HALF the cost.
@42 I was going to come back and comment on contingency money. So you saved me the trouble of a follow-up comment, Max. Thanks!
If I remember correctly, there was once a proposal for building a bridge that went out over Elliot Bay as a replacement for the Viaduct. The bridge would move traffic that is just passing through downtown, while new surface streets would handle the traffic coming into downtown or leaving it.
I think the $$ was distinctly less for the bridge proposal, but it nobody from the city or state would seriously consider it.
Perhaps its time they did.
@46
LOL..Sorry for stealing your thunder Steve. :)
@41: That ultimately illustrates my point.
@43
It’s a private venture that’s needed one thing after another from the city and should already be built and running. They’re going to be breaking ground on it soon.
How many cool things didn’t happen because the LeMay folks have been monopolizing the city’s time for years?
@50
Interesting. I don’t know any of the current details about the project anymore, but I did some preliminary budgeting for a portion of it a few years ago.
If Arizona has to be on the hook for the US Govt not securing the border, I see no reason Seattle shouldn’t be on the hook for a State project.
@51 And that’s the problem, its been around for years and years and it ‘ain’t done yet.
I mean, I’m on Goldy’s side on this. 99’s a state highway, ultimately it’s the state’s baby. The Gov and the Ledge need to step up and get whatever it is they’re going to do done. Last I checked state trumped city.
“Fuck Seattle”??!! Seattle doesn’t get it. Billions of dollars for transportation are being proposed for Seattle. A tunnel is being built to enhance Seattle’s waterfront because Seattle absolutely refused a new viaduct. Now the Mayor is proposing billions for the state and region to provide light rail across SR 520 and yet to come is billions for a light rail from West Seattle to Ballard.
All Seattle does is complain and invents new things to complain about.
49 – no, it doesn’t.
52 – to build a bridge in the 21st century between two urban centers w/ no light rail is not only myopic, it’s fucking insane.
@55 Worf
Umm, troll fits your description of the comment @52 to a T.
@56
hear this: light rail is a waste of money. period.
58
Thank you, oh wise one, for your luminously clear proclamation.
@59
you are welcome.
@58
It really depends on the corridor, the specifics of the individual line and the characteristics of the network as a whole.
Downtown-Capitol Hill-U District-Northgate makes a heck of a lot of sense for light rail both due to existing transit ridership and the lack of any real space for exclusive bus lanes.
Ivan
WTF.
Frankly, I think you and Goldy BOTH are missing the boat when it comes to tunnel imapct. North South traffic on 99 is oretty low .. I have read about 20% of the traffic is through Seatle as opposed to in or out of Seattle.
A dedicated tunnel can easily handle that .. leaving redevelopment of the surface streets (sand\s viaduct) to the City. The opportunities to tie NW 15th, Ballrad Bridge, Elliott Ave to the diwntown, maybe with a better cross stree to Mercer, would havea far bigger postive impact on the city than Allenville.
Seattle is errr ahhh … a CITY.
The alternative to the deep bore tunnel would logically NO NS transport through Seattle .. reroute it all to the East
@62
I’ve read the traffic studies done for the EIS. A surface boulevard along the Waterfront would easily handle all of the current 99 traffic, provide better access to downtown, etc.
Sure there would be traffic lights, but if properly timed the traffic could be kept mostly flowing since other than the ferry terminal there is no traffic trying to cross Alaskan way. Average travel times would increase over the current viaduct only slightly even during rush hour.
Remember that for most of its length through Seattle 99 is a surface street with traffic lights and it still seems to somehow keep moving. A limited access highway segment isn’t needed.
The current viaduct moves traffic just fine. It also allows freight traffic from the port to move freely underneath it, as well as foot traffic from downtown to the waterfront to move freely(underneath it as well).
A surface boulevard is the most asinine solution there is. I can travel at 50-60mph from where the viaduct starts to the battery street tunnel without much problem – and you want that reduced to going through a dozen lights? The traffic backups going north and south would be EPIC!
Look, why are people trying to invent the wheel? The viaduct WORKED. And it worked for a reason, it allowed freeway speeds up top, and foot traffic and freight to move down below.
The original designers and planners of the viaduct are obviously about 100x smarter than the fools trying to push another design today.
Rebuild the damn thing and call it good.