Supporters of the downtown deep bore tunnel today argued that this megaproject could
be built without any cost overruns. That’s absurd, and here’s why:
First, the deep bore tunnel would be the widest ever attempted. We’ve had plenty
of problems with much smaller tunnel boring machines on the Brightwater
outflow – and we expect experimental equipment to do better?
Second, only 2 percent of the design work has been completed. It’s utterly
irresponsible to suggest that the current estimates are anything more than a rough
guess of total costs.
Third, the city has yet to release a financial plan for the project. We don’t know
which taxes are going to be raised, or what utility rates are going to go up. And
no financial controls are in place to monitor revenue or expenditures. And make
no mistake, the sums are huge – Seattle’s $930 million contribution will be the
largest tax or fee increase in city history.
Fourth, researchers at Oxford University have concluded that 90 percent of
megaprojects like this one experience cost overruns of 30 percent, on average.
That would mean additional costs of $1.27 billion for the tunnel project, all to be
paid by city taxpayers.
Fifth, we can’t seem to build a sidewalk in this city without a cost overrun.
Beyond the cost, the tunnel design is still flawed. There are no onramps or offramps
downtown. This means it will be useless for 59.8 percent of current viaduct traffic,
according to the state’s May 2008 origin and destination study. And it will never serve
any transit needs.
I’m running for the city council because it’s time to make smart investments. This
megaproject has all the makings of a boondoggle, and fails to position us for the future.
As we’ve seen in recent news accounts, this city is in desperate need of financial
accountability. If elected, I would become the only council member with a background
in finance. And the first thing I will do is bring needed scrutiny to this poorly conceived
project.
I’m sorry but I completely disagree with the above except your fifth point. Maybe you can do something about that but I doubt.
Mike, thank you for bringing attention to this. Also, an earlier study showed that the tolling would generate less than estimated, meaning a shortfall in funding–which is seperate than a cost over-run but has a similar impact. A new study is being delivered to verify this amount. I am looking forward to the legislature publishing that information.
While everyone is talking about the economic downturn, the need to reduce taxes, and the need of leadership to bring “green and green energy new economy businesses” to seattle–items which are in the 100s of millions in GDP–the institutional talking heads are advocated for a 4.24 billion dollar spend/tax in old economy modes of transporation, which per mile of road and per car travel is a top heavy ratio.
We need to elect change out of this old way of thinking which dates back to Wash DOT thinking from the administrations of Rosellini and Evans.
The data and public benefit just aren’t there on SR 99. We should not invest in an elevated nor a tunnel.
Ralph,
How exactly do you disagree with first four points?
1) what bored tunnel is wider?
2) what percent of the design work do you think is done?
3) do you know what taxes will be increased, by how much, and when?
4) you disagree that this study exists? see “Tunnel’s cost may fool us all”, column by Danny Westneat, The Seattle Times
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2009123442_danny26.html
Like your campaign information. I would be all for voting for you except that you are against the tunnel. I don’t care what it costs It’s time we finally did something right. Get rid of that ugly thing before it falls down. A deep tunnel will speed traffic through Seattle iinstead of just slowing everyone down. Have you considered changing your stance at all? This is the only place I could find on your site that I could leave a message for you. Roy
I agree with all points laid out here, and have a couple other points to mention, but will NOT burden you all at this time. Don B. Sea.
You definitely have my vote Mr. O’Brien! I wish you were running for Mayor! The people of Seattle were given the opportunity, they thought, to vote for or against the tunnel. Except the ballot was deceitfully worded “which do you prefer” rebuilding the viadock or digging a tunnel? Seattle voters “preferred” rebuilding the viadock or a boulevard. The Seattle voters did not “prefer” the tunnel which Governor Gregoir acknowledged. I prefer driving along our viadock viewing the Seattle skyline and beautiful Elliot Bay, not going from sunlight into a dark, 2 mile long tunnel, oh, and with NO exits! I also enjoy visiting waterfront shops, restaurants and activities and having a place to park (under the viadock are hundreds of parking spaces). I also enjoy hopping on the viadock in Belltown , exiting to first ave and in a couple of minutes arriving at Seahawks Stadium, Home Depot or Sears. Then back to Belltown via the viadock and the Western Avenue exit. A tunnel with no exits means Belltown folks will drive south on either 1st, 2nd or 3rd already jammed with traffic. A tunnel will make things worse. I’d like to know happened behind those closed doors and why we are getting a tunnel when we voted that we did not “prefer” the tunnel. Could it be that the waterfront has already been promised to favorite developers? While I’m on the subject how is it that 9th Avenue between Denny and Westlake closed off for construction, just became the driveway for Paul Allen’s Enso building?
Any information on your sources though?