Comments on: Times: Tunnel Overruns “may be toothless”

By: Cost Overruns - Seattle Transit Blog

Cost Overruns - Seattle Transit Blog — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:03:21 +0000

[...] cost overruns. The Senate did carry the amendment through to the final bill, though it may not be possible for the state to enforce that provision. Some even wondered what it would mean if other municipalities had to pay for their overruns, as [...]

By: Olympia Update: Transit Does Pretty Well - Seattle Transit Blog

Olympia Update: Transit Does Pretty Well - Seattle Transit Blog — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:20:13 +0000

[...] to Vancouver starting next year, and the final version of the bill kept in the House’s “Seattle pays for overruns” Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement [...]

By: eddiew

eddiew — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 01:05:49 +0000

there are really not cost over runs yet. WSDOT does not have a real cost estimate today. what is the level of design, one percent? the portals have not been designed. The bill requires them to report back at the end of 2009 with a firmer estimate. they are just doing the soil samples now. this will be the first single bore 54-foot tunnel. but the law suggests a state contribution of $2.4 billion plus $.4 billion in potential toll revenues for a total of $2.8 billion. the target of Seattle “area” property owners is quite vague. would it be the metropolitan statistical area, the county, the city, or downtown? who benefits from the deep bore: downtown property owners who have the waterfront opened up or drivers able to bypass downtown in a fast highway, many of whom are from outside Seattle? 2.8 billion is a big number; will it be big enough? and, Seattle is on the hook for one bilion more.

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:17:48 +0000

I think he’s just holding out to get the great wall of chopp built.

By: lazarus

lazarus — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:47:23 +0000

What do they say about Washington politics? Something like, “It is Eastern Washington against Western Washington, and everyone against Seattle”? I suspect that there are a few state legislators who found it easier to vote for the bill with the amendment attached because they could claim that they were sticking it to Seattle, but that doesn’t explain why Chopp sponsored it.

It’s no wonder that the citizens become so cynical when our legislators continue to play games like this and are continuously looking for cover. In any case, whatever the reason behind this crazy amendment, what a screwed up way to run a state.

Hopefully the amendment will be dropped when they reconcile the Senate and House versions of the bill.

By: Mickymse

Mickymse — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:46:14 +0000

Well, he is thinking about that. I suspect he wants money for what his folks want the 520 project to look like….

By: Andrew Smith

Andrew Smith — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:16:53 +0000

Usually representatives fight for deals to get their locale more money, not less…

By: Andrew Smith

Andrew Smith — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:16:09 +0000

He’s not crazy but he doesn’t seem to be representing his district very well.

By: Mickymse

Mickymse — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:30:38 +0000

I don’t like that Times article, Martin…

It sounds like the amendment squeaked through because it doesn’t specifically pass the cost overruns off to anyone. Otherwise, it might have been blocked.

On the other hand, if it sticks, it gives cover for the Legislature to not pony up funding in the future. All they have to do is point at this agreement that everyone supported.

Chopp’s not stupid. He sat on his crazy Viaduct replacement idea for at least a year before releasing it to the public. He wouldn’t have pressured folks to pass this amendment unless he had plans to do something with it down the road.

By: Andrew Smith

Andrew Smith — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:29:56 +0000

It does seem like it’s not constitutional. I do wonder about this:

Asked whether that language would actually have any legal force, House Transportation Committee Chairwoman Judy Clibborn, D-Mercer Island, who sponsored the amendment at House Speaker Frank Chopp behest, said Thursday “I have my doubts.”

Where’s your district, Frank?