So here’s a question I haven’t heard asked, let alone answered, throughout the contentious debate over who pays cost overruns on the Big Bore tunnel.
If, for example, the tunnel boring machine gets stuck, as happened with Brightwater, and if the contractor is unable to get it moving again, as happened with Brightwater, and if we’re forced to bring in a new contractor at an expense of hundreds of millions of dollars above the original bid, as happened with Brightwater… who is going to write the checks?
Am not asking who will ultimately pay for the cost overruns; that’s what everybody is fighting over. But rather, who will pay the new contractor, in the short term, to complete the job?
Will the state, who is responsible for digging the tunnel, fork over the cash, and then attempt to collect from Seattle taxpayers later? Or, at the point when cost overruns become an actual reality, will the state halt work on the project until Seattle somehow comes up with the cash? I mean, obviously, no contractor is going to start a multi-hundred million dollar job on promises that they’ll be paid eventually… you know, once the city and the state and the original contractor finish years of litigation.
With the legislature insisting that the city is responsible, and the city insisting that the cost overrun provision is unenforceable, and the governor insisting that there won’t be any cost overruns — and the whole project under-bonded by more than half — isn’t there a potential cash flow problem here should the worst happen? And isn’t this the sorta thing we should settle before we sign all the contracts?
I’m just askin’.
What happens if we can’t finish the thing period?
Goldy; Since this is a state highway, I presume that the State DOT would be the one overseeing bidding, issuing the contracts, and writing the checks.
But that doesn’t mean that some bondholders might not get stuck with the bill. Remember the WHOOPS fiasco, when the nuclear power plants were shut down during construction, and the courts decided that the bonds were issued without the proper authority? That left the bondholders in the lurch, and some potential investors avoided Washington State bonds for a while, driving up our costs of borrowing money for capital projects.
Yep! We’ve still got the crumbling remains of cooling towers out at Satsop to remind us of that one. The Sea-Chunnel is probably going to end up as WHOOPS #2.
Because it’s funding trick.
Silly Goldy, tricks is for kids.
Is there really any issue that we can do anything about?
I really do not know but Goldy may have a good question someone should ask.
Cost over runs and disasters .. aka “shit” does happen. Having a contingency plan seems like good planning and the posturing of McGinn and the legislature likely do not help.
So, here is a set of what ifs that I would like answers to:
Assuming the Tunnel is now a done deal, what if
a. the machine goes poof. Who pays? What happens to traffic in the meantime?
b. the state/tunnel part does get built, but there is not enough money for the obviously needed surface street issues. How do we handle the resulting traffic mess if that money runs out due to cost overruns??
c. In the event the machine goes poof, could there NOT be money to resolve the issue and is there a back up plan.
d. If Jesus comes during the Tunnel did, will the HA Trolls pay for completing the Tunnel out of the money Jesus gives them or we no longer need cars?
What if you are crossing the street? You might be hit by a car. What if you get sick at your favorite restaurant? You might die of e-coli. What if…..etc.
Life is risky. You cannot eliminate risk. You can manage risk. You can avoid some risks, like, what happens when the viaduct is no longer safe to use.
The real question is: has the council quantified their tunnel overun risk “portfolio” so to speak? My impression is yes. And perhaps a meteor falls or Mt. Ranier goes off. But shit happens.
What are the risks of the state not paying for the Urbanist wet dream? Pretty goddamned high I would say. We’ll be on the hook for that one, even with a license tab tax.
Great question!
clint didler must pay!
bore a fudge tunnel through capitol hill.
DFH McGinn was right and is right. He’s even…fiscally responsible. (Woe, woe!)
Awful, ain’t it?
BTW, did you see the part where it turns out that BP is backing one of the Eymans? I figure if we can tie it and him to BP, we have a chance of killing two birds with one stone.
The state will. Enforcement legislation on the Seattle side will go no where. The state will not want the embarassment of a $2 billion dollar tunnel to no where, especially of the finishing costs are less than a half billion.
of goldylocks wont discuss how the contractors are pulling out of the project because its so fooked up…the democrat run city of seattle and state of WA cant seem to unfuck themselves…you elected ’em, now eat the mud they brought for dinner.
time to either rebuild/retrofit the existing viaduct or build a new one and end all this other pie in the sky bullshit.
re 12: So, your grand analysis is to ‘do something’?
Sounds like Grandma when the Thanksgiving turkey is burning.
WSDOT put out the RFP for removal of the Viaduct so I assume they would do the same for the replacement. In that case WSDOT would be responsible.
And yes, this will have to be sorted out no matter what prior to bidding the replacement. It now being clear Seattle has no intention of paying for cost overruns, I can virtually guarantee that the Legislature will be withdrawing funding for the tunnel next session.
Frankly, it’s not surprising they screwed up the mechanism to make sure Seattle would be on the hook since it was a last minute deal to get the funding in the first place. But now that everyone’s eyes are open and the Mayor pushing to block the tunnel, I think it’s as good as gone.
BTW, its nice someone is asking these questions because I don’t think most people in the Seattle area realize just how likely it is that we’re going to tear it down without a clue what will replace it.
Goldy, this shit has been discussed at the council meetings.
Do a little video watching, er, homework.
Special Committee on the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Project and Central Waterfront Planning
Go back two weeks, and a week ago, where they talk about insurance, surety, etc.
@13
I just told you what the best solution was…either retrofit the existing viaduct or replace it with a new one.
reading comprehension is in short supply at your place?
@13
Yeah, and #17 is a Republican, so he knows what’s best for everyone. So, just go along and do what daddy says.
@6
What if the economy continues to tank, gas goes back back up to $3.50 a gallon (that one’s a when not an if), and people cut back on driving their cars even more than the already have? If Tolls for the Narrows Bridge can’t cover the payments money to cover payments comes from the general fund. The general fund is already sucking left hind tit. If people cut back on driving that means a cut in gas taxes. If that happens how are we going to pay for The Sea Chunnel?
I’ve said all along that the tunnel will never be finished and I’m still sanding by that statement.
“And isn’t this the sorta thing we should settle before we sign all the contracts?”
What contracts? No contractor in his right mind would bid for this project.
@17,
Reading comprehension was never headless lucy’s strong suit. Arizona State… Party skuul!
Cost overruns are par for the course for just about every major construction project. Think Big Dig in Massachusetts, the boon doggle of John Effin Kennedy and the Edward Kennedy Senate Seat. Instead of always accepting the lowest bid because it’s accepted they’ll be cost overruns, why not rebid the job and take a middle of the road estimate? At least it would be more realistic then what everyone is squabbling over now?
Where is “Patty Murray’s sneakers”? She’s now part of the DUMMOCRAPTIC Senate leadership. She should have clout. Oh wait… this isn’t her forte. If this is a shovel ready project why ain’t she getting us the funds? AT DL Puddy heard how she got this or that funded. But it’s not something that sticks in peeps minds. Well, if she got this funding from the Porkulus Bill as a shovel ready project, her approval rating would be over 50%, right peeps?
So with this tunnel how many real exits vs. proposed will there be de to financial costs?
Will the city retime surface street lights to handle the tunnel exits? Right now you can’t go more than four to five streets without having another red light!
Will the viaduct be immediately torn down when the tunnel opens or will it stay up for a while while all the problems are sorted out with the tunnel?
@21
Aww, boo fuckin hoo. You gotta stop for cross traffic sometimes. My heart fucking BLEEDS.
When are you nihilist thumpers going to realize the world does not revolve around your desires for instantaneous and total gratification? Sometimes you just have to wait at a stoplight. Sometimes the waiter takes a little longer to reach your table. Sometimes there isn’t a line at the grocery checkout that is short enough. Sometimes that wonderful, caring preacher you worship so absolutely just wants to cornhole your 8 year old son.
The lowest bid on a government project is what is accepted simply because IT IS THE LAW. It has been for almost a century.
Jesus H Christ you are a stupid motherfucker. Don’t you have a book-burning rally to attend somewhere?
@21 “Cost overruns are par for the course for just about every major construction project.”
I see that your ignorance about construction doesn’t keep you from tossing out vapid remarks.
The request for proposals will ask potential contractors what the cost would be for the project. Once the contractor is selected from this RFP process, the state would craft a contract that includes all of the requirements and responsibility of the contractor and the requirements and responsibility of the state. The contractor will probably be responsible for hiring and paying sub-contractors and so it will be in the financial interest of the contractor to make sure the subs do their jobs.
The way the process has gone for at least a decade would prevent a contractor from getting fully paid until the product is delivered, in this case a completed tunnel. Now the state will likely fork over a bunch of money for costs as they occur but there will be a significant portion reserved for the final project.
However, if contractors are not used for the majority of the project and instead the work is done by WSDOT itself, then there isn’t a contract in place to protect the state (or Seattle) from cost overruns. Take for example, the entrance ramp issue in Tacoma where the width was completely wrong and it had to be ripped out and made over. All that was reported is that it would cost X amount more.
Does anybody remember the unfinished tangle of overhead on- and off-ramps that used to soar over I-5 right near where you had to exit to Dearborn in order to get to the start of I-90 in the Rainier valley? They were there for about twenty or twenty five years?
So above, Goldy asks a reasonable question, and to many the answer appears to be about financing and contractual provisions (or name calling, of course, it is HA after all,…) But I posit that the answer may be that we are racing to replace a section of dubiously stable soil beneath our central business district with a hollow tube which will probably eventually be filled with seawater and broken machinery.
Sounds great!
@25
The offramps to nowhere you refer to where there because I-90 was delayed by so many lawsuits. It was finally completed but ended up being the most expensive freeway project at the time.
That’s what McGinn’s sandbagging promises us.
Goldy asks: “Am not asking who will ultimately pay for the cost overruns; that’s what everybody is fighting over. But rather, who will pay the new contractor, in the short term, to complete the job?”
How about having all liberal progtards foot the overruns? After all, this is progtard Sim’s legacy.
MarkS @ 26
I wasn’t alledging any cause (or political spin) as to why the ramps to nowhere lay dormant for so many years. I’m simply saying when work stops, for whatever reason, on a partially completed deep bore tunnel, what’s going to happen to the hole?
Sandbagging perhaps, but in a literal sense I fear.