Our Champagne Tunnel and Hot-Potato Cost Overruns

"Gov. Gregoire makes with the photo op," courtesy of Seattlest Flickr pool member EdgarDiazRocks, who adds, "She pushed past me on the edge of the finish line, looked back at her PR guy and said, 'Why aren't they smiling? I would be HAPPY to finish! Let's go over to the cancer survivor lane, that'll be better.'"

We think it's pretty fitting that as Governor Gregoire prepares to drown Seattle (and, in fairness, the rest of the state) in debt, she kicks things off at the Seattle Aquarium. It'll be a little champagne celebration of the bill signing for the Act Now! While Supplies Last! $4-billion, viaduct-replacing, deep-bore tunnel, 2 p.m.

Mayor Nickels, speaking of the tunnel for which no cost overruns can be foreseen, noted that, "The design work and engineering on the 'mile in the middle,' which has been the controversial part, will go forward in about two years." Does that mean what it sounds like? Is the most controversial part really undesigned? (The Weekly's Damon Agnos has some terrific quotes from someone who looked like the Mayor speaking out strongly against a tunnel a little while ago.)

Mayoral challenger Michael McGinn was in the news yesterday, announcing he'll hold a counter-press conference at the Aquarium (1:40 p.m.) and producing this trenchant quote:

The point is, the state doesn't want to pay for cost overruns. The city doesn't want to pay for cost overruns. And cost overruns are almost inevitable. If nobody really wants to pay for the tunnel, why are we proceeding with it?

We hope someone puts that question to one-time activist Cary Moon, who Publicola reports is listed as a host of a Greg Nickels fundraiser. ("Sorry Mike, looks like she’s joined the Man," adds Josh Feit. We had no idea Nickels needed the fundraising help.)

Jesus, what a debacle. There's a long list (thanks, Agnos) of people who can't wait to tie this millstone around their political necks: "Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen and Rep. Judy Clibborn (transportation committee chairs), Sen. Ed Murray (prime sponsor of the legislation), Port of Seattle Commissioner John Creighton, Washington Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond and King County Transportation Director Harold Taniguchi." We look forward to typing "due to their support for the ill-fated tunnel" in their political obits for some time to come.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@seattlest.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By MvB in News on May 12, 2009 10:05 AM

Comments [rss]

BallardSting

Cheers to McGinn for calling a spade a spade, or more specifically, calling out the tunnel for what it really is, a giant waste of public resources that does nothing to address the real problems we face.

sciencevsromance

you know what? when this tunnel is finished everyone is going to love it because it's not the viaduct and it takes traffic away from the precious waterfront.

MvB

But Josh, "when" and "how much" are the really salient issues here because the tunnel is proposed to be a "vital" corridor (the proposed benefit of the deep-bore tunnel is that the viaduct won't close before the tunnel is finished), and the tunnel affords a fixed capacity, so you can compare its merits on a cost/driver basis with other state transportation projects in need of funding.

If it is not finished in exactly the time frame, we lose. It's already too expensive, but with the possibility of costs doubling and the improbability of anyone walking away from a half-built tunnel, it's likely to be the major public works undertaking in Seattle of our lifetimes. All so people can commute past Seattle more quickly.

I also doubt this is going to take that much traffic away from the waterfront, net--more people will want to *go* to the waterfront without the viaduct there, and this project makes no real attempt to tempt anyone out of their cars.