“The tunnel project is 70 percent completed, according to WSDOT, so there’s no turning back at this point,” [Seattle City Council President Tim Burgess] added. “It is city government policy that this project be completed. The governor agrees. The mayor agrees. We must move forward.”
Look, I’m not suggesting that now is necessarily the time to pull the plug on the deep bore tunnel (or more accurately, put a plug in it). I’m not privy to enough information to make that decision one way or the other. But we should at least be open to that possibility, regardless of how much money we’ve already spent on the project.
No doubt Burgess understands this. If the engineers were to estimate that it would cost an additional, say, $20 billion to “move forward” and complete the tunnel, I’m guessing Burgess would be more than willing to turn back at this point. But would he turn back if the cost of completion was another $1 to $2 billion? How about $4 billion? Or how about $10 billion?
The money we’ve already spent on the tunnel is a sunk cost (in more ways than one), and as such should have no impact on our future spending decisions. What matters from here on out, given the known cost overruns and risks, is whether we’re likely to get more for our taxpayer money completing the remaining 30 percent of the project, or whether it makes more sense to to turn back and pursue a different option. Our prior expenditure of both financial and political capital should in no way influence our decision.
Goldy,
Sounds like the advice a professional gambler was giving on table stakes poker.
You bet based on how much is on the table, how much it is going to cost you to call/raise and your estimated odds on winning.
Nowhere is “sunk cost” mentality more costly or destructive than when it goes like this: “We must keep fighting this war so we don’t betray the men who’ve already lost their lives in it.” You humans are an irrational lot. Rabbits know when to cut and run. That’s why there’s so many of us.
Go ahead — estimate the tax cost of the new ST2 financing plan. Nine figures, right? That’s why the sunk costs of the particular rail systems that have been started are immaterial. Plus, those sunk costs wouldn’t be useless: the state could operate the commuter rail from Tacoma to Seattle and Metro could operate the UW-Seatac rail line.
Goldy’s opinion, while not wrong, sounds suspiciously conservative.
@ 4
Were he to apply the same rationale in any way, shape, or form to ACA, that would be conservative.
It should also be emphasized that the tunnel, however it compares with large civil boondoggles around the country, remains an entity of the state and of Tunnel Partners LLC. yesss… the Seattle city council and Seattle mayor will make statements and collectively wring hands, but they have no final say over what is done on the project. It is a state route and a state project, and you’ve got Olympia in the cockpit as much as the alluvial clay. But, we already knew this, yes? We haven’t lost sight of this simple fact in the midst of political posturing, have we?
Theophrastus — good point. This is a project for State Route 99. The Seattle City Council has no more say in it than does any other observer. The conceit that Seattle has some authority over it seems to have originated with then-Mayor McGinn and his supporters, who put an advisory vote against the tunnel on the Seattle ballot, which they then promptly lost.
In the general sense, Goldy is correct: we should decide our path forward based on whether the project is worth doing at the estimated cost for completion. Resources already spent should not influence our choices.
Is it a sunk cost if you have a $500 million dollar bond that kicks in if STP can’t finish ? Wouldn’t you want them to get as much progress as possible before they’re bankrupt from their attempts and you try to finish with another path using 500 million ?