No Comments (Leave Comment)
By City Councilmember Nick Licata.
Urban Politics (UP) blends my insights and information on current public policy developments and personal experiences with the intent of helping citizens shape Seattle’s future.
- PROPOSAL FOR A PUBLIC VOTE ON THE TUNNEL
- UPDATE ON FINANCES
- COST OVERRUNS
- COUNCIL SCHEDULE FOR VIADUCT DECISION
- TRANSPORTATION BALLOT MEASURE
On August 3, I announced my intent to introduce a resolution to the City Council calling for a public vote on a tunnel replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct. The proposal calls for a public vote on the following “Yes” or “No” question:
“Should Seattle construct a tunnel to replace the existing Alaskan Way Viaduct?”
I proposed this because we don’t have enough funding to pay for a tunnel. I believe we need to consult the public before moving ahead. A tunnel likely costs at least $1 billion more than a rebuild.
After studying this issue in depth, I believe it is likely that if the City pursues a tunnel, City residents will have to make up the $1 billion cost difference between a tunnel and a rebuild. In essence, the question is: do you want to pay the cost difference?
Other less expensive options could be explored if the public decides against a tunnel.
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) estimates the tunnel to cost $3.7 to $4.5 billion. WSDOT estimates the reduced “core” tunnel at $3.0 to $3.6 billion. They estimate a $2.7 to $3.1 billion cost for an elevated structure (this is the name WSDOT now uses for a rebuild), $2.0 to $2.4 billion for the “core” elevated structure.
The project has $2.4 billion in committed funds, enough for the core elevated option.
Mayor Nickels released a funding plan in June. Nickels plan lists $2.6 billion in what he calls “anticipated and potential” revenue sources, as listed below:
$280 million – Federal (transportation funding sources extending through two federal funding cycles)
$200 million- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Seawall)
$60 million – Federal Emergency Relief funds for the earthquake damage and risk to the current viaduct
$800 million – Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID)
$150 million – Tolls
$177 million – Sales tax rebate on RTID-funded projects
$400 to $500 million – Utility relocation
$250 million – Downtown area Local Improvement District (LID) for areas near the project
$20 million – City of Seattle transportation funds
$200 million – Port of Seattle
Three state representatives-Speaker Frank Chopp, House Appropriations Chair Helen Sommers, and Mary Lou Dickerson, said in a letter about the funding sources that “we do not believe that they constitute a ‘feasible and sufficient’ finance plan for a tunnel,” noting that several of these sources are speculative, and all depend on future actions.
For example, federal transportation dollars are granted in 6 year cycles, and the next one doesn’t come up until 2011. The RTID is a possible ballot measure for 2007. The WSDOT website states, “To date, studies have shown that a toll solely on SR 99 would raise few funds. The sales-tax rebate may be altered by the legislature. The Downtown LID needs 60% approval, and the proposed area extends to Spokane Street, far beyond the tunnel location.
The finance proposal lists $400 to $500 million for utility relocation. The City earlier estimated utility costs from $128 to $568 million. Is this truly a revenue source, or a likely cost increase?
Is it realistic to expect there will be no cost overruns on a project of this size? Even a 10% cost overrun-not bad for a project of this size-would run into hundreds of millions of dollars. If the City had to pick up this cost, it could have a calamitous effect on the City budget.
Can we expect the state and the federal government to cover cost overruns? I asked the City’s Transportation Director who would be responsible for paying for cost overruns. I received a reply in May that stated, “as is typical with major projects that are a partnership of multiple agencies, every project partner may be expected to share the burden of cost overruns.”
However, the letter from the three state legislators states, “The Legislature funded a rebuild not a tunnel and we do not expect the executive or legislative branches to agree to overruns driven by a City preference.”
The Council is scheduled to consider whether to place a measure on the ballot in September, after the Expert Review Panel makes its recommendations to the Governor. September 22 is the deadline for the City Council to place a measure on the ballot for the November 7 General Election.
The Council today passed a transportation maintenance ballot measure. Included in the package was an amendment I proposed stating that “No Levy Proceeds shall be used to fund the major repair or replacement, including but not limited to replacement with a waterfront tunnel, of the Alaskan Way Viaduct or the seawall located to the west of Alaskan Way.” The Council passed similar language I proposed for the proposed parking and employee taxes.