“Why does Frank Chopp hate Seattle?” That’s the question Josh asks at Publicola after State Rep. Reuven Carlyle (D-36) showed him an amendment to the Viaduct Bill that pins potential cost overruns on the backs of Seattle taxpayers.
The amendment, sponsored by House transportation committee chair Rep. Judy Clibborn (D-41, Bellevue, Factoria, Newcastle), says any cost overruns on the Viaduct tunnel project have to be paid by Seattle-area businesses—a standard for a state-funded project that Carlyle argued had never been applied to locals before. (Without any local accountability measures, for example, Rep. Carlyle pointed out, the state has spent $1.56 billion on 405.)
[…] Carlyle wasn’t simply standing up for his turf, though. He believed the amendment, if passed, would set a “dangerous precedent” that locals across the state could now be held accountable for cost overruns “on any bridge, ferry, roads, or building project.”
The “Big Bore” is the brain child of the oh so credible Discovery Institute, which, based on its profound respect for the sciences, promises that new and barely tested deep bore technology can dig the tunnel cheaper and faster than ever before possible.
Um… maybe. But maybe not. The deep bore tunnel is without a doubt the least studied Viaduct alternative from an engineering and a geological perspective, and yet it was quickly embraced by the powers that be after local voters and politicians appeared to be reaching a consensus on the much less sexy surface/transit option.
Surface/transit was also the least expensive option, for both the state and the city, and no doubt the easiest to accurately estimate costs, as we have a helluva lot more experience laying down asphalt than we do sending giant boring machines through downtown Seattle’s relatively unexplored substrata. Discovery’s assurance’s aside, the Big Bore is by far the riskiest option in terms of potential cost overruns. I’m loathe to bring up Boston’s infamous Big Dig, as I don’t subscribe to the notion that Americans have somehow lost the ability to engineer tunnels, but… well… shit happens.
And if shit happens, it should be the responsibility of the state to clean it up. After all, it’s the Governor and the Legislature who put up the most resistance to the surface/transit option, and who eagerly sought out the Big Bore as a magically delicious alternative. So why the hell should local taxpayers, who were already prepared to settle on a less expensive, less risky (and yes, less elegant) solution, pick up the tab should Discovery’s faith-based transportation plans turn out to be not all that intelligently designed?
We shouldn’t, and now is the time for Mayor Nickels and other local political leaders to send a clear message to Olympia that, if they change the terms of the deal on us, forcing us to pick up the costs of their potential blunders, then the deal is off. Seattle has already agreed to pony up $1 billion toward the cost of replacing this state highway, but if this amendment sticks, placing all the risk on our backs, I say we put away our checkbook and tell our legislators to just go screw themselves.
So, the taxpayers of Seattle will have to foot the bill for problems and cost overruns on the Discovery Institue inspired deep bore fiasco….what about this does anyone like?
The people who don’t live in Seattle presumably like the idea of not having to pay potentially huge cost overruns on something they didn’t ask for, won’t use, and don’t care about.
I would think the business owners would prefer the surface street option, so that people couldn’t bypass downtown Seattle altogether.
But you have to admit, boring a big hole underneath the city is pretty cool.
It’s Discovery Institute’s
faith-baseduntested idea. If there are cost overruns due to theirfaith-baseduntested engineering technologies, shouldn’t the Discovery Institute be liable for making up the difference?Yo Goldy, the city agreed to be responsible for any cost overruns. The state is providing enough money to replace the viaduct this is where DOT’s responsibility ends. Seattle should seek federal urban renewal funds for the additional costs since they relate to that mission.
Ditto what Particle Man @ 4 says. Just retrofit it — no cost overruns there — and let the traffic continue to roll. Let Josh and the rest of the car-hating “new urbanist” weenies piss and moan. It should be clear by now that their political clout in Olympia is a big fat ZERO.
Why are you all so *down*? Let’s look at the silver lining in this! :)
The Viaduct debate is a sacrifice to the Seattle process gods. If we can just start appreciating it as performance art, then it might be possible to perpetually delay the whole thing. Even those of us who’d prefer something else to take its place have to appreciate the political mire it has become from a spectator sport perspective.
The surface option has been tried. And it failed badly. Why do you think that the ugly thing was built in the first place? Yes, I know that was back in the 1950’s. When there was a lot less cars, a lot less people. And there was buses, working trolley lines (not for show like the S.L.U.T.) It failed for a reason, you can not send the number of cars that pass through downtown on the surface streets. Not in the 1950’s, not now. And the waterfront businesses where dieing, nobody could walk from downtown to the water front.
Look, we’re going to tear the viaduct down, it’s sinking to quick and too unstable to just ‘patch’ for another 100 years. The ONLY debate is what to do with it WHEN we tear it down.
Surface is CHEAP but TOO slow. There’s no room on I-5 to take the permanent overflow.
JUST cut & cover the new ditch/tunnel. ALL you have to do is dig a 15 foot deep ditch, cover it with i-beams and pour asphalt on top. This ain’t rocket science folks…it’s ditch with a roof. It would be quick and cheap AND easy to build LOTS of ‘stairway’ exits every 200 feet or so to the surface (think Battery street tunnel, but wider and with a new pretty paint job)
Goldy says:
“And if shit happens, it should be the responsibility of the state to clean it up. After all, it’s the Governor and the Legislature who put up the most resistance to the surface/transit option, and who eagerly sought out the Big Bore as a magically delicious alternative. So why the hell should local taxpayers, who were already prepared to settle on a less expensive, less risky (and yes, less elegant) solution, pick up the tab . . .?”
So let me get this straight, Goldy. You and Josh and Cary Moon demand that the Legislature turn a heavily traveled state highway into a gridlocked crawlway — which would really, truly, cut off the waterfront from downtown — to massage your esthetic sensibilities.
Then you simply make shit up when you pretend that there was any consensus, even in Seattle, much less in Olympia, for your “surface option” wet dream.
Then you blame the Governor and the Legislature for having the unmitigated gall not to buy into your “New Urbanist” fantasies.
Then you wonder why Olympia frustrates you so much?
Take the day off, Goldy. Let your fingers do the walking through the Yellow Pages, or Google up a few salvage yards, and see if they have a clue they might want to sell you cheap.
Ok, there is a disconnect in reading the amendment and what was written at Publicola. Publicola states “Seattle-area businesses” while the amendment states “Seattle property owners who benefit from replacement of the viaduct.”
I am sure the argument in Olympia will end up being that everyone who owns property in the city of Seattle will derive some benefit from the Viaduct replacement, so they should all pay the overrun. You know there will be an overrun.
Please don’t compare our little project to the Big Dig –
It’s not like we would be the first to do a large bore tunnel, they’ve been completed all around the world in varying soil/rock conditions.
http://www.tunnelbuilder.com/
We notice that Michael McGinn, who is Nickels’ main challenger so far in the mayor’s race, has come out in opposition to the tunnel deal:
http://www.facebook.com/note.p.....3567770455
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....annel_page
“I say we put away our checkbook and tell our legislators to just go screw themselves.”
Why not build it, pay for it, then toll the shit out of commercial and non-resident traffic?
If we examine the books carefully, we might find that Seattle taxpayers subsidize a good chunk of the highway infrastructure throughout rural Washington. How about reciprocity?
@6:
Your comment reminds me of Bill Virgin’s suggestion: Rebuild the viaduct and annex it to the sculpture park with the title of “Urban Landscape No. 99.”
One percent for art? That’s wimpy. Let’s go 100 percent!
@9:
Good to see you calling Goldy on his bullshit on this issue. There is no consensus in Seattle for surface transit outside of a hipster circle jerk. That’s why it was never an option in Mayor Nickels’ fraudulent ballot two years ago — it would’ve polled even worse than the viaduct or the tunnel.
ivan–
Goldy is a metrosexual…it means he only knows how to screw himself!
Statistics and Damn Statistics:
Got that right for once. And we all know why that is, right SADS? State and City Dummocraptic decisions. Hmmm… what bright spark decided to build the WASCC over an interstate highway again?
Puddy loves watching the local Donkey eat each other over this viaduct decision. Pure Dummocraptic politics, plain and simple.
uptown, good call. Remember the big dig was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay over budget by Billions and Billions (Carl Sagan) and was the Kennedy/Kerry poltical boondoggle of MASS Transit.
@15: If you knew anything about Seattle history, then you would know that it was the rightwingnuts who argued that I-5 would never be full and that we should not build trains (in the 1970s).
Those myopic and ignorant fools were wrong then and they are same rightwingnuts arguing against light rail now.
ooops – wrong for 30 years and still wrong – some people just cannot learn.