Search Results for: viaduct

If I’d told you that Joni Balter had a piece up about an election, would you think, maybe she’s going to write about the bond and levy elections that happened yesterday? Or perhaps the elections this November for Seattle City Council, King County Council, and various other municipalities around the state? 2012, and what the redistricting might do to state and Federal elections here in Washington? What will be the lines of the 10th district? Will she write about how Gregoire’s probable retirement means a reshuffling of the state’s executive branch? The president? No, stupid, none of those things, something that will happen after all of them. She’s writing about the mayor’s race.

It’s summer 2013: The southern half of the Alaskan Way Viaduct came down 10 months ago, creating dust, noise and predictable simmering feuds. But at least the project advanced before a feared earthquake. At Seattle City Hall, the ground rumbles in another way.

Construction projects never have any delays. True fact. Also, did the demolition create predictable simmering feuds, or am I diagramming that sentence wrong?

A humdinger of a mayor’s race is taking place, pitting the biggest foe of the tunnel, Mayor Mike McGinn, against City Councilmember Tim Burgess and state Sen. Ed Murray, two project supporters. As the city keeps growing, the public is comfortable that a tunnel is being built to keep traffic moving.

Remember that list of elections that happens before the one we’re talking about? I’m not sure Burgess wins it. If the cost over runs measure gets on the ballot (a big if), I think a few members lose.

Also, Balter is awful confident that there won’t be any more traffic than when the Viaduct was up. That nobody will feel any ill effects from the tunnel. To be clear, the 2013 tunnel is coming in on time, under budget, and not negatively effecting anyone in this fantasy of hers. Since construction on 1st is already fucking up my commute, I find that tough to believe.

Also, also, humdinger? There are mummies who don’t use that phrase because it’s too passe. Anyway, skipping past bullshit digs at McGinn, we get back to the Burgess.

Burgess skated to re-election to his council seat in 2011 and has been a leader on the viaduct, parking, education, police accountability, the sea wall. Voters lapped up that Families and Education levy he and the mayor worked on in 2011.

Since Burgess in 2011 punts on police accountability and the seawall, it’s tough to imagine why he’ll be taking the lead in 2013. Everyone thinking about running for anything in Seattle will support the Families and Education levy, so I’m not sure why that’s his. On parking he’s mostly modifying McGinn’s proposal, and it will be 3 years old by the time of the election. I’m not familiar with his education plank (or if it’s made up like some of the other things). So mostly that’s things McGinn has done better through 2011. But if you think the tunnel will be made of pixie farts, and not cause any problems then score one for Burgess.

Look, I’m probably McGinn’s biggest supporter among bloggers. I voted for him somewhat reluctantly in the primary, and volunteered for him in the general because I really didn’t like his anti-choice-corporate-bigwig-I’m-going-to-buy-the-election opposition. But I was skeptical that the Mike Bikes thing was real. I was skeptical that he’d pull for the city when things got tough. I was wrong, and he’s the rare breed of politician who has exceeded my expectations.

But I understand that our last 2 mayors lost primaries for reelection. And that not everybody likes his style. So, he could lose. I’d rather someone who loses by doing good for the city than the seat warmers we’ve had for the past 50 years or so.

Anyway the conceit of this piece after I read Balter’s column was to spin out things that could happen to those people that weren’t that much more unlikely. Burgess loses in November, Murray decides to run for governor. And that the Seattle Times folds in early 2013. But the way I wrote it, it’s mostly just Burgess bashing instead. Since I’ve lost the whole thread, I’ll just end here.

I know you have a busy schedule of trying to figure out ways to kill Washingtonians for want of basic social services. Still, I can’t believe that you aren’t speaking to the Mayor of the largest city in the state? Really? Because he said the untrustworthy things you did made it tough to trust you?

I mean, the man has said he’s willing to meet you much more than half way on the Viaduct replacement. He has said OK to a deep bore tunnel that he hates. He’s said OK to the loss of downtown exits. He’s said OK to figuring out how to pay for the city’s portion of the costs. He’s said OK to everything except the cost overruns on the state portion of the project. The fact that you can’t meet him there, and refuse to talk to him at all strike a terrible cord.

And look, I understand your disagreements. I certainly didn’t like his opposition to Roads and Transit. Yes, it worked out in the end, but I agreed with you: the risks were too high. But he said he’d be back with a transit only proposal, and by God he was. And that’s the rare thing that I think a lot of people miss about McGinn, he’s shockingly honest. He’s put out what he’d want and what he’s willing to compromise to, and it’s pretty far. He’s told you exactly how you can get this tunnel that you want done, and there’s no reason to believe that if you go along with him on the cost overruns and find ways that it doesn’t clog up city streets, that he’d be right there with you like he says.

And I know you feel like you’ve compromised too. Your favorite position was to replace the Viaduct with another, much larger, viaduct. So you feel that this tunnel and the money you’ve already appropriated to Seattle is enough. But you punted on replacement, called a vote, and lost. So now you’re stuck with a backup that I know you moved to, but it’s not the best way to move people around Seattle.

Maybe I and people like me are a bit to blame here too. After the quake, my main concern was to do something, almost anything, because I don’t want to die in an earthquake. Like McGinn, I preferred a surface/transit/I-5 option, but unlike him, I thought I would have been fine with whatever emerged. It turns out that despite my assumption that y’all in Olympia are out to get Seattle, I didn’t think you would go with whatever Bruce Chapman pulled out of his ass and then demand that we pay for any cost overruns, no matter if they were the state’s fault.

And this plan was so bad for Seattle that the city voters dumped our mayor in the primary and ultimately supported the person who was skeptical of it. There were other reasons Nickels lost, of course: It snowed a lot the year before the election. People didn’t like his support of light rail or opposition to the monorail. But his championing of an unpopular tunnel and saying trust Olympia that it would all work out gave a lot of people a reason to give him the boot. Seattle doesn’t trust the state.

We don’t trust Olympia when you take more money from Seattle than we put into state coffers and then tell us how generous you are. We don’t trust Olympia when you pander to people who hate Seattle by putting in a bullshit cost overrun provision. We don’t trust you when you take away all downtown exits, and tell us how the project is for Seattle drivers. We don’t trust Olympia when you go out of your way to pander to a car culture when many of us take the bus or take light rail or bike.

Perhaps you can earn back Seattle’s trust. I guess the next session is a good place to start. Fix the problems with the tunnel, talk to the mayor who respects the city and its citizens; don’t pretend that Richard Conlin is a reasonable substitute. I’m proud to have voted for you twice, but please stop bashing my city.

Love,

Carl Ballard

If you haven’t read it yet, you really need to take a gander at Dominic Holden’s in-depth spelunking of the deep-bore tunnel cost-overrun controversy in the current issue of The Stranger, in which a local journalist finally asks the rather obvious question: “What Could Possibly Go Wrong?”

I know it’s all the fad these days amongst the Rainier Club crowd to roll one’s eyes at the mention of Mike McGinn’s name, all the while planning for Mayor Burgess’s election night victory party, but considering what’s at stake, it’s nice to know that there’s at least one elected official standing up for Seattle taxpayers (whatever his motives or sometimes clumsy methods). For at a time when the Seattle Center is preparing to auction off a couple acres of rare, designated open space to the highest bidder, in pursuit of a mere couple hundred thousand dollars of additional annual revenue, just imagine what a couple hundred million dollars in cost-overruns will do to our ability to pay for the things we want and need, let alone the billion-plus bill we could be presented with should things go seriously wrong.

And as Dominic explains, things could go seriously wrong.

Now I’m not one of those who points to Boston’s “Big Dig” and similar fiascos and concludes that America has somehow lost its ability to engineer and construct big projects. Large infrastructure projects do sometimes come in on time and near budget, and WSDOT has had a particularly good track record in recent years. But I’m no pollyanna either, especially when it comes to the least studied, least engineered, most speculative of any of the various Viaduct replacement alternatives.

In fact, when the Discovery Institute first floated the idea of what I immediately dubbed “The Big Bore,” I ridiculed their apparently faith-based proposal as “Intelligent Transportation Design.”

I once proposed building a gigantic rollercoaster along the West Seattle to downtown portion of the Monorail’s abandoned Green Line, and you didn’t see my joke of a transportation proposal picked up by the MSM, let alone labeled “visionary”. And yet the Seattle Rollercoaster Project is no less technically challenging nor politically, well, utterly fucking ridiculous than Discovery’s deep bore, crosstown tunnel. … In a city where completion of a 1.3 mile vanity trolley line is feted like some transportation miracle, the very notion that local voters might commit more than a half billion dollars a mile to an untested technology is a dramatic tribute to Discovery’s primary mission of promoting the exercise of faith over reason.

Much to my chagrin our political establishment quickly embraced Discovery’s Big Bore proposal, ignoring the technical challenges while attempting to bypass the political ones by excluding Seattle voters from the process… only to run into the electoral equivalent of a stuck tunnel-boring machine: the surprising election of Mayor Mike McGinn.

Like a stuck TBM, Mayor McGinn can’t possibly reverse himself, and with the cost-overrun issue still conveniently blocking his way, he sure as hell ain’t moving forward. Vindictive, short-sighted and/or lazy legislators may have thought they cleverly short-circuited our city’s famously obstructionist civic fetish with process, but where there’s a will, there’s a Seattle Way.

Observers who don’t believe last year’s mayoral election was at least in part a referendum on the Big Bore Tunnel are smoking crack. McGinn long and loudly campaigned on his opposition to the tunnel, and even when he relented during the final weeks, he still promised to fight any effort to stick Seattle taxpayers with open-ended cost-overruns. So why should anybody roll their eyes at the sight of Mayor McGinn attempting to fulfill his promise? The irony is, while the wise, old sages at the Seattle Times blame Mayor McGinn for the cost-overrun controversy, it’s actually the controversy that deserves the blame for Mayor McGinn.

As with the underlying technical challenges in drilling the largest diameter deep-bore tunnel ever, the powers that be have also failed to fully think through the financial and political challenges associated with the proposal. When I hear Governor Gregoire, City Council president Richard Conlin and other tunnel boosters warn that further delays will only increase costs, my immediate response is, well what the fuck did you think was going to happen to when you attempted to ram this through? It’s been nine years since the Nisqually quake marked the Viaduct for immediate demolition; did anybody really think that spitefully sticking Seattle taxpayers with all the risk for a tunnel they don’t particularly want was gonna speed up the replacement process?

And what if the tunnel comes in way over-budget, as mega-project history suggests it is likely to do? Where’s the money gonna come from to finish it? Are we gonna sit for years with a half-dug hole in the ground while the state and the city endlessly litigate their financial obligations? Or will the state shift funds from other parts of the project to complete the tunnel, while leaving the decrepit Viaduct standing like some ancient Roman ruin, until some future tumbler finally knocks it over onto the waterfront? I mean, how the fuck do you even start a project like this without knowing how you’re gonna ultimately pay for it?

There is not, as the Times and others suggest, consensus support for a multi-billion dollar tunnel with no downtown exits or onramps that will only serve 40,000 vehicles a day, though there may very well be a consensus by now to just get this debate over with and build something. I even find myself in “something” camp these days. Hell, I’d settle for anything.

But I’m not willing to settle for anything at any cost… and outside of the Times editorial board, the folks at the Discovery Institute and an apparent majority of city council members, neither are most Seattle taxpayers.

There may not have been consensus support for the surface/transit proposal either, but had the legislature forced that option down our throats — the cheapest and least financially risky of any of the alternatives — we’d probably be building it already, because whatever its downsides, it was by far the most technically, financially and politically doable. Instead, the legislature chose to risk the future fiscal stability of our city for the sake of folks wanting to quickly drive through it.

As utterly fucking ridiculous as the original Big Bore proposal was, that’s nothing compared to the notion of the state assuming all of the responsibilities for building it, while assuming absolutely none of the risks. And until the state proves it can navigate the well-charted sink holes and boulders of Seattle politics, nobody should have confidence in its ability to bore through the uncertain terrain hidden beneath the city.

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.

I’m kinda with Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn in his opposition to the deep bore tunnel, though not exactly for all the same reasons. (I mean, we pick the most expensive Viaduct replacement alternative possible, but we can’t even scrounge up the loose change to replace the South Park Bridge? What’s up with that?)

Still, I think Gov. Chris Gregoire came awfully close to disarming the mayor’s most compelling rhetorical argument against the current proposal: the bizarrely punitive provision in which Seattle taxpayers are responsible for picking up the tab for any cost overruns.

Think about it. Regardless of how low the initial bids are coming, or how much of a cushion they’ve supposedly built into their estimates, we all know that mega-projects sometimes often more times than not come in over budget. That’s a fact. Yet the state DOT, which is tasked with managing this part of the project, bears none of the costs for the risks it takes on.

No doubt it made some legislators feel awfully damn good to slip in this provision, but it is simply untenable, and just cannot stand.

Gov. Gregoire now says that the provision’s language merely represents “legislative intent,” and would not be enforceable without further legislative action. “When the state budget is being drawn by the state, the state is responsible for the projects,” the Governor said yesterday, dismissing McGinn’s objections. In fact, she even challenged McGinn to go to Olympia and get the language changed:

“If you want it changed in the law, you need to take it to the Legislature in January. You get it done, you bring it to my desk, I’ll sign it.”

Great. So Gov. Gregoire is on the record in favor of striking the cost overrun provision. But instead of just shoving it in McGinn’s face — who, to be honest, has not thus far proven particular adept at persuading legislators — how about if the Governor offers to take the lead and propose this fix to the legislature herself? And while we’re at it, how about if House Speaker Frank Chopp, Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown and respective transportation chairs Rep. Judy Clibborn and Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen collectively swallow their pride, and promise to work with the Governor and the Mayor to get this done?

There are other good policy arguments for opposing the tunnel, but no other good rhetorical ones, so instead of just attempting to embarrass the Mayor in a public forum and hope he slinks away, it is time for the Governor and other Olympia leaders to put this to rest by promising to remove this last remaining political stumbling block.

If Mayor McGinn is smart, he’ll score some points by claiming credit for forcing a major concession. And as much as that might pain Gov. Gregoire to pay that sort of political price, well… sometimes mega-projects like this simply cost more than you expect.

A few days back I accused the Seattle Times editorial board of selectively championing taxpayers, “you know, when it suits its purposes,” so it was kinda amusing to see Joni Balter pick up the same exact meme in yesterday’s column attacking Mayor Mike McGinn: “A tax protector when it suits.”

Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn worries that cost overruns on the downtown deep-bore tunnel will hurt taxpayers, so he plans to veto formal agreements related to the viaduct-replacement project.

To the uninitiated, the mayor is looking out for us. But the mayor is only a friend of taxpayers when it suits his agenda.

The same mayor said he wants Seattle residents to pay for light rail on the west side of the city — which is so full of pitfalls and unknowns it could cost hundreds of millions of dollars or more. And he wants light rail across the Highway 520 bridge, in addition to already-agreed-upon light rail across Interstate 90. Presumably, Seattleites and Eastsiders would be on the hook for this, though no price or source of revenue has been identified.

A tax protector one day becomes a big spender the next.

Pot, meet kettle.

Balter goes on to lambast McGinn for championing the Parks Levy that was widely passed by voters in 2008, a truly ridiculous argument that I was planning to thoroughly deconstruct before Slog’s Dominic Holden got there first, so I might as well just blockquote him:

She’s got it backwards when she says that McGinn is pushing expenses on taxpayers. Taxpayers signed up for the cost of parks and light rail (that the Seattle Timesopposed). And McGinn says that if residents want more light rail, the taxpayers would have to vote on that, too. But the tunnel tab is being pushed on taxpayers who didn’t sign up for it. In fact, the one time when the public had a say in a tunnel, albeit a different sort of tunnel, they rejected it. McGinn—like or dislike his politics or strategy—is trying to protect taxpayers from something they didn’t commit to. It’s not the same thing and nobody should be duped by this comparison.

See the difference, Joni? The Parks Levy and Link Light Rail, these were both approved by voters, as would be McGinn’s proposed in-city light rail extension, should it come into being. But the Big Bore? Not so much. Yeah sure, McGinn is opposed to the tunnel on ideological grounds, but he’s got a pretty damned good argument to make about protecting taxpayers from shouldering cost overruns from a state managed project they didn’t vote for, and that is the most expensive, least studied and by far the riskiest of the three major Viaduct replacement alternatives.

As Dominic further points out, Balter also dramatically overstates the cost to the city’s general fund of operating and maintaining new parks acquisitions ($160,000 in 2011, not the $750,000 Balter claims), but I think more shameful is the way she conflates by inference general fund revenues with those from special purpose voter approved levies:

In the next month or so, you will hear cries from all quarters about cuts coming to police, fire, libraries, parks and social services. Woulda coulda shoulda. What if we didn’t bless every spending measure that comes our way? What if we deferred park acquisition a few years? How many cops and library hours could we buy with maintenance and operating funds dedicated to new parks — an estimated $750,000 in 2011 and $1.8 million by 2015. A cop costs $100,000 a year and a one-week library closure saves about $650,000.

Perhaps Balter understands the way city budgets work, but I’d wager the majority of voters don’t, and columns like hers don’t do much to educate the public. The voter approved levies and sales taxes dedicated to things like parks and light rail have little or nothing to do with the general operating budget, which is almost entirely funded through the city’s statutory property, sales and B&O tax authority, not through voter approved special taxes. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Like the county, the city’s property tax revenues have been capped at one percent annual growth, thanks to the incredibly stupid and unsustainable limits imposed by I-747, and then reimposed by a cowardly legislature after that measure was tossed out by the courts. This forced the city to rely even more on sales and B&O taxes, thus exacerbating the revenue shortfall during this prolonged economic downturn. That’s the real cause of our budget crisis: a bad economy and an inadequate tax structure.

So to even suggest that our budget problems stem from parks levies and light rail is just plain stupid. Or disingenuous. Or both.

The Seattle Times editorial board insists that “Seattle must move forward on tunnel now,” despite concerns that current legislation would leave Seattle on the hook for cost overruns from the portion of the project being built by the state. We simply can’t afford to delay any further, argues the Times, not even to fix and/or clarify an unfair and possibly unenforceable provision that could cost local taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

And yet, when it comes to the salaries and benefits of unionized King County government employees, it is suddenly the interests of taxpayers that is the cause of urgency, with the Times arguing that there just isn’t time to study the comparative wages of government workers with those in the private sector:

Governments have a tendency to study matters to death. A study feels like a delay tactic, a way of hoping healthier revenues return and the heat vanishes from the need to reduce worker costs.

See the difference? Big, expensive highway project worth billions of dollars of private contracts — the most expensive alternative of any Viaduct replacement option proposed — and the Times throws caution to the wind, local taxpayers be damned. But the livelihoods of unionized, government workers… well, we just can’t afford to take the time to study if they really are as pampered and overpaid as the Times implies. (Or perhaps, we can’t afford to learn the results?)

So yeah, it’s hard to believe that the virulently anti-labor Times truly has the taxpayers’ interests at heart in demanding union concessions, when it seems so eager to hang us out to dry on tunnel cost overruns.

The headline in the Seattle Times says it all: “Gregoire opposes Seattle officials’ request to rethink 520 bridge.”

Of course she does. As does Judy Clibborn (D-41) and Mary Margaret Haugen (D-10), the respective chairs of the House and Senate transportation committees.

And what do all three elected officials have in common? None of them are from Seattle.

Meanwhile, a bill is meandering through the Legislature that would severely limit cities’ local control over large projects in their district, like, you know, the Alaskan Way Viaduct Tunnel, and the 520 bridge.

Of course my gut reaction is to rail against the rest of the state for their “Fuck Seattle” attitude, and the way elected officials outside the city explicitly and implicitly exploit it to their own political advantage. But really, we only have ourselves to blame.

We’re the ones so caught up in the Seattle Way that we can’t ever seem to make a firm decision for fear of pissing off one constituency or another, and we’re the ones who consistently elect perhaps the most anemic political class of any major city in America. Theoretically, the Seattle delegation represents the largest and most powerful political block in the Legislature, and yet they’re either incapable of working together that way, or unwilling to do so out of fear of reinforcing the stereotype that Seattle dominates the state.

Well I’ve got news for you: Seattle should dominate the state! This is where the largest chunk of voters live, and this is where an even larger chunk of the wealth (i.e. tax base) resides. Unlike the goddamn U.S. Senate, we elect all our legislators by the person, not the square mile, and so it’s only fair that our population-dense city gets a disproportionate share of state spending and power.

And yet at a time when two major transportation projects threaten to reshape the city for the next half century or more, we can’t even manage to put one of the transportation committees in the hands of a Seattle legislator. We’re pathetic.

During his years as a columnist at the Seattle P-I, Ted Van Dyk earned a reputation for, um, not responding kindly to editorial feedback, which I suppose explains why the editors at Crosscut don’t even try. For example, take his recent prescription for balancing state and local budgets without raising taxes:

Big capital projects should be put on hold. That would mean, in Seattle, moving forward with both the deep-bore tunnel, to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, and the Evergreen Point bridge modernization.

Now that’s the sort of logical, coherent prose that makes Van Dyk a must read for lazy bloggers everywhere.

Yeah sure, if you read further you eventually figure out that he really means that all big capital projects other than 520 and the Big Bore should be put on hold, but from a writerly perspective one could make a strong argument that there’s an entire paragraph missing between the two sentences above.

Which of course distracts from the factual incoherence of Van Dyk’s argument, in that capital and operating budgets actually have nothing to do with each other. For example, Van Dyk surprises no one by arguing that King County Executive Dow Constantine should halt light rail’s Eastside expansion:

Its crushing prospective pricetag ($23 billion and counting) already threatens to displace not only non-rail transportation but other spending for other public purposes in the decade ahead.

But the dedicated taxes to pay for this project were overwhelmingly approved by voters for the express purpose of building rail, not roads. (Remember, the “Roads & Transit” measure failed at the polls one year before the transit-only version passed.) And even if Constantine could halt construction, in clear defiance of the will of the people, it’s not like the revenue could be legally shifted to, say, jails, courts and law enforcement… a criminal justice system that eats up over 70% of the county’s general fund.

So to use an operating budget deficit as an excuse for arguing to halt capital spending on projects you don’t like, is just plain dishonest. Or stupid.

But either way, it makes for juicy blog fodder.

House minority floor leader Doug Ericksen (R-42, Ferndale) says that if Seattle can’t make up its mind on how to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, Eastern Washington would be happy to take our money:

“As someone who actually understands that the Eastside means the east side of the state, not the east side of the lake, I get a little bit irritated with the amount of money we spend waiting for Seattle to make a decision on transportation projects,” Ericksen said. “We’d be happy to take that $3 billion and spread it to the rest of Washington.”

Notice how he doesn’t say “We’d be happy to take that $3 billion and use it to balance the state budget.” No, he’d just be happy to take money from an economically vital Seattle project and spread it around the red counties, whether it’s needed there or not.

Huh. I guess that’s what Republicans mean when they describe themselves as fiscal conservatives.

The 520 bridge replacement project is more than another transportation project.

It is an opportunity to build healthy places to live, work, and play that our region won’t see again for at least another half century.

It is an opportunity to be good stewards of the environment and to address climate change.

It is an opportunity for our many local communities to come together and act as a region.

It is an opportunity for us to determine what kind of city we want and the quality of life of our neighborhoods.

It is an opportunity for our state to offer a vision of transportation for the 21^st Century and not just building roads like its 1959.

Finally it is again an opportunity to move our transportation system forward.

It will take leadership to bring together all the many points of view on how to best move forward on transportation. But we have done it before.

During my time as Chair of the House Transportation Committee, working with my Republican and Democratic counterparts in both the House and the Senate, we passed fourteen and half cents in gas taxes by bringing road and transit advocates from the east and west side together.

(I point out the fact that I worked to pass the largest financing package for roads in our state’s history only to preempt the pigeonholing of my perspective here as that of another Seattle Democrat transit advocate.)

It will take leadership from the environmental community to get transit right. Transportation remains the single largest contributor to global warming in Washington State – over half our greenhouse emissions come from vehicles. The 520 bridge project offers a real opportunity to build a transportation structure of the future that contributes to the solution.

Neither the legislation authorizing the new 520 bridge, nor any of the current designs, integrate transit into the design or planning of the project. Nor is there any financing mechanism for new transit in the corridor, particularly for high capacity transit. The name alone — “The 520 Bridge and HOV Replacement Project” – is proof that again we are building a road to move cars, and not a transportation corridor to move people and goods. The current plan amounts to placing existing buses onto new HOV lanes to share with cars. Glaringly, it lacks a streamlined connection for transit riders between the north/south transit corridor at new Sound Transit Station at Montlake and any future transit riders moving east/west from the new 520.

It will take leadership from the City to bring neighborhoods that currently disagree amongst themselves together. Far more people live and work near the 520 bridges then the Viaduct. The City should use the model it developed during the creation of urban villages to approach the project in a comprehensive manner. It should put the Departments of Planning, Neighborhoods, and Transportation on the ground and bring together neighborhoods that are currently divided, creating an all-neighborhoods comprehensive mitigation and transportation plan. It is impossible for the Seattle legislators to support a city position when one is lacking.

It will take leadership on the part of the county to bring urban and suburban interests together. The county with the new leadership of Dow Constantine from Seattle and Fred Jarrett from the east side of Lake Washington is uniquely positioned to bring both sides of the lake together and act as a region. The state should consider allowing the County to assume all coordination for planning and financing for a new 520 and I-90 corridor transportation authority.

It will take leadership in the Legislature to address the fact that the current financial plan is unattainable. During the negotiations to pass the nine-and-a-half-cent gas tax east of the lake, legislators insisted on moving $1.5 billion out of 520 and applying it to I-405. Now we have a shortfall. The solution is to toll I-90 in addition to 520, and committing toll revenues to the construction, maintenance and operations of the bridge and of transit.

If we fail to come together as a region on a project that is crucial to our economic future, I believe we will destroy the coalition that moved our transportation system forward and return again to the defeats we suffered in years past.

We have succeeded in the past and we can do it again. Let’s capitalize on the many unique opportunities we face. Let’s move our transportation system forward.

— Sen. Ed Murray

I think the Post Globe has been the best thing to rise out of the former P-I. And I generally like this piece on McGinn’s final town halls (incidentally, I’ve been making calls for McGinn, and the last time I did, we were pushing undecided voters to one of the town halls). Still, this piece of conventional wisdom repeating was a little disappointing.

Surprisingly, McGinn wasn’t asked about what Mallahan in particular has been describing as his flip flop over the viaduct.

Why are you surprised? First off, these are undecided voters. The people who are passionate about the tunnel one way or the other, who would ask that as their only question at a town hall (even in West Seattle) have made up their mind about the mayor’s race. They’ve got better things to do on a Saturday.

More important though, nobody outside of the political class thinks that the tunnel is the issue of the campaign. Sure it’s important, and it’s where one of the biggest distinctions can be drawn. But people are more concerned with, for example, crime and education than they are about a few miles of a state highway.

But of course, reporters who drive into Belltown from all across the region and leave before the crackheads come out probably put a higher emphasis on traffic on 99 than on crime in the city. And if they’re sending their children to Bellevue or Edmonds public schools, they probably don’t care as much about education as a parent worried about the quality of their neighborhood school. In fact, they’re more likely to laugh off McGinn’s education plans as unrealistic or someone else’s job.

Still, reporters, in these last few days of the campaign, please don’t be surprised that people care about more than just the tunnel. Don’t be surprised that Seattle voters care about rising crime, or that we care about the cultural institutions of the city, and dealing with the dropout problem. Please consider that whoever we support, we might care about parks and neighborhoods. Please also understand that we think transportation is more than just the Viaduct: that we want improved bike lanes, better mass transit, and a road system that works throughout the city.

I’ve got a longer fisking in the works, but I just needed to pause for a moment to call out Susan Hutchison for a particularly infuriating piece of hypocrisy that local righties always seem to get away with:

Paula Hammond, the state transportation secretary and Sound Transit board member, said “I was surprised it (the 520 proposal) came up. I don’t understand it.”

“The voters have decided. It makes it a bit moot.”

Hutchison believes voters were really just approving a general endorsement of extending rail to the Eastside rather than of a specific route.

Get that? According to Hutchison, voters didn’t really know what they were voting on last November when Sound Transit put forth very detailed plans for Eastside rail expansion, so as county executive it would be her prerogative to change the plans as she saw fit.

Now to be fair, I happen to agree that voters often don’t fully understand the ballot measures on which they’re asked to vote, and that many, many such issues would be better decided through a deliberative legislative process rather than a thumbs up or down at the polls. But at least I’m consistent in my cynicism towards so-called direct democracy.

But not so our political and media establishment which almost uniformly stands up for the inviolability of tax-cutting, government-restricting ballot measures like those peddled by Tim Eyman, yet seems almost eager to second guess voters when it comes to their support for actually spending money and other policy priorities.

Car tab slashing initiative I-695? Well yeah, it was unconstitutional, but we better implement it via legislation anyway because that’s what the voters say they want, whatever the consequences. But the teacher pay and class size initiatives? Oh those silly voters… they were so irresponsible in not specifying a revenue source, so we’re pretty much free to suspend those whenever budgets get tight.

The renewable energy initiative overwhelmingly approved at the polls? Voters didn’t really understand the specifics and the consequences we were told, so legislators felt free to try to loosen the terms last session. But I-747’s arbitrary and unreasonable one-percent cap on revenue growth from regular levies? Again, unconstitutional measure, but we better call a special session to reimpose it because, damn, it was the will of the people you know.

Voters reject a baseball stadium, we get a baseball stadium. Voters reject replacing the Viaduct with a tunnel, and local and state leaders get together and compromise on, you guessed it, a tunnel. And hell, then there’s the Monorail. Boondoggle or no, it took five separate ballot measures before voters finally rejected the Monorail, but only that last vote was somehow considered definitive. Yet even dare to question the tax and revenue limits already in place, and an elected official is virtually guaranteed a scathing attack from our state’s opinion leaders, not to mention the usual, bullshitty, angry email-cum-fundraising-scam from our friend Timmy.

Huh?

I mean, if Dow Constantine were to imply voters didn’t understand what they were voting on in approving I-747 (which by the way, failed in King County), just imagine how he would be castigated by Eyman and the Seattle Times ed board for his arrogance. Yet Hutchison implies the same about last year’s excruciatingly deliberated, negotiated, debated and hard fought Sound Transit Phase II expansion — a measure that passed in King County with an extraordinary 63% of the vote — and nobody bats an eyebrow.

What a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

Well you can’t have it both ways. Either a vote of the people is carved in stone by the invisible hand of God, or it isn’t. And since after two years our state constitution gives initiatives the same standing as any other law, I’d say it is clearly the latter.

But either way, popular ballot measures like last year’s Prop 1 simply shouldn’t be abrogated via executive fiat, and any suggestion to the contrary should be roundly greeted with ridicule. It is Hutchison, not the voters, who clearly hasn’t been paying attention when it comes to regional transportation planning, and she desperately needs to be called on the table for her ignorance, if not her arrogance.

Yesterday, in admitting my decision to vote for Mike McGinn (I don’t like to do “endorsements” per se), I questioned some of his political judgement, specifically: “I still think his unwavering opposition to the tunnel loses him more votes than it wins him.”

And lo and behold, a few hours later, McGinn backtracks his previously intractable stance against the tunnel, explaining to Publicola:

“I still oppose the tunnel. I think it’s a terrible decision for the city of Seattle. My statement is a simple acknowledgment of how the Democratic process works. The mayor is obligated to follow a 9-0 vote of the council. It’s not an option for the mayor to just ignore legislation.

I’ve consistently been against the tunnel. I remain opposed. Yesterday, I acknowledged that it’s not the mayor’s job to ignore legislation passed by the council.”

Huh. Maybe there’s a political advisor job waiting for me in the McGinn administration?

Don’t get me wrong, I too opposed the tunnel, convinced that a surface/transit option was the best alternative given current financial constraints, but I’m not so opposed to it that I’d be willing to indefinitely block the Viaduct replacement until the crumbling freeway fell down on its own. Yeah, the Big Bore is overly expensive, possibly unnecessary, and as the least engineered and studied of all the proposals, by far the most financially risky option that could have been adopted, but there’s no debating that it enjoys overwhelming support within our political establishment, and, well, sometimes, you just can’t fight City Hall… even from City Hall.

I’ve never doubted McGinn’s ability to throw a hefty monkey wrench into the works, but blocking Seattle from moving on something is a helluva lot easier than pushing it to move in another direction, and I just didn’t see how McGinn was going to get us from here to there. McGinn’s admission that a 9-0 council vote (not to mention the pro-tunnel stance of the governor and the legislature) is not something a mayor is likely to overcome shows a pragmatic side that I wasn’t sure he had coming into this campaign, and should help assuage the concerns of some who feared a vote for McGinn would be a vote for gridlock, both figuratively and literally. Though considering the establishment support Joe Mallahan has garnered, it may be too late.

We’re going to build the tunnel, regardless of who’s in the mayor’s office, but with the question of cost overruns still on the table, I’m a lot more comfortable having McGinn defending the interests of Seattle taxpayers than Mallahan.

If Mike McGinn wins his race for Seattle mayor, he will no doubt credit much of his success to his firm stance against the Big Bore tunnel, and the latest Survey USA poll shows McGinn may be picking up momentum. But if he ends up losing the race to T-Mobile exec Joe Mallahan, I think it may be fair to argue that that is exactly the issue that did McGinn in.

It’s no secret that since the primary Mallahan has enjoyed broad, if somewhat tepid endorsements from business, labor and other organizations firmly grounded in the mainstream of the Seattle establishment, as well as many of Mayor Greg Nickels’ former supporters. If there was a Democratic political machine in Seattle (and there most definitely isn’t), the sound you’d be hearing right now would be its rusty old gears grinding into place behind Mallahan.

Why? Well, although the political insiders I’ve talked to all lament Mallahan’s lackluster and uninspiring campaign, and openly question whether he’s really prepared to be an effective mayor, they all point to the tunnel as the single issue driving them into the Mallahan camp. Oh, they don’t all love the tunnel, and most are quick to criticize its financing, but the establishment consensus is “enough is enough” on our near decade-long thumb-sucking over replacing the Alaska Way Viaduct. As much as they fear Mallahan may prove an ineffective mayor, they equally fear that McGinn may prove quite competent, if only in his promise to block the tunnel project.

Of course it’s not as simple as that. Many business types argue that the tunnel is in fact the best and least disruptive choice for both maintaining mobility through the downtown and redeveloping the waterfront, while some of the labor-types view the tunnel purely in terms of jobs, jobs, jobs. But if McGinn wanted to make the tunnel the number one issue in this race, he’s certainly succeeded… at least with the bulk of Mallahan supporters.

Despite his lack of political experience (or even, you know, voting), Mallahan has now clearly been cast as the establishment candidate, while McGinn is making the most of his role as the populist outsider. And while being a populist isn’t a bad thing to be in a Seattle election, I wonder if McGinn may have overestimated the breadth and depth of popular opposition to the tunnel, while underestimating the obstacle establishment money and endorsements could prove to his mayoral ambitions?