On August 3, I announced my intent to introduce a resolution to the Seattle 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.
Finances
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.
Seattle Mayor Greg 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; and
$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 six-year cycles, and the next one doesn't come up until 2011. The RTID is a possible ballot measure for 2007. The WSDOT Web site 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-percent 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?
Overruns
Is it realistic to expect there will be no cost overruns on a project of this size? Even a 10-percent 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 (state) 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 City 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.
This column was taken from Seattle City Councilmember Nick Licata's Urban Politics electronic newsletter. Reach him at editor@ capitolhilltimes.com.
[[In-content Ad]]
