Mike McGinn has a response to the yesterday’s Nickels challenge.  He identifies the funding sources and sketches out a $2.4 billion budget for surface/transit that fits the revenue.  That’s more than you can say for the deep-bore tunnel, which is currently roughly $1 billion short in identified sources.

The Nickels campaign identified the surface/transit total cost as $3.5 billion.  Looking at the chart, it appears the key discrepancy is that Nickels includes $1.1 billion for “Moving forward” projects (the work already underway on the North and South ends.)

It’ll take some more digging to resolve the discrepancy.

13 Replies to “McGinn Responds on Viaduct”

  1. The TunnelFacts team responds to Sandeep’s (Nickels) and Tayloe Washburn’s atttempts to “set the record straight” on the Viaduct here: tunnelfacts.com/tunnelfacts-vs-tunnel-fiction/

    1. Yeah, I guess they accidentally missed that detail. I do love all those safety exits they highlighted. Are people worried the tunnel won’t be safe?

  2. This is becoming a nice process of elimination for me to determine my mayoral vote. There is no way I can support Nickels and any candidate that supports a surface only option on Alaskan Way is off my list. Two down.

  3. I thought this was a pro-transit blog, but it seems like it is a pro-car blog. Most of the comments are against the option that will provide the best options for helping to get people out of their cars. -that’s the Transit/Surface/+I-5 improvements option recommended by the WSDOT stakeholder’s group.

    The bottom line is that if we go for the tunnel, it will be for cars and there won’t be money for transit because Seattle will be so burdened with cost overruns that we’ll be unable to fund anything else.

    For those of you who insist on having the tunnel, I suggest you start your own blog – the Seattle Car Exhaust Blog.

    1. Jim,

      People are free to comment here regardless of their ideology. For the record, every contributor here that has stated an opinion has come out against the tunnel.

      That isn’t to say that demanding more transit service is mutually exclusive from demanding more roads, especially given Washington’s constitutional restrictions.

      The point of this thread of posts is to figure out how badly the tunnel project would starve funding for transit, compared to the S/T option.

      1. Constitutional restrictions? Are you talking about the Washington Administrative Code (WAC)for throughput? These are regulations that can be changed by the Secretary of Transportation so that numbers can easily be satisfied through mobility gains from transit.

      2. He’s talking about Amendment 18:

        SECTION 40 HIGHWAY FUNDS. All fees collected by the State of Washington as license fees for motor vehicles and all excise taxes collected by the State of Washington on the sale, distribution or use of motor vehicle fuel and all other state revenue intended to be used for highway purposes, shall be paid into the state treasury and placed in a special fund to be used exclusively for highway purposes.

      3. Can we lobby our legislature to amend this? It seems as if this is a very 20th century policy to have.

  4. dont you think the tunnel crowd would have the tunnel stay underground under aurora to queen anne hill as a selling point for support? according to the video, aurora remains the awful pedestrian death-trap at-grade traffic sewer that it is today.

Comments are closed.