7:32 AM Sun, Aug 09, 2009 | Permalink |
The agreement to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a deep bore tunnel is a complicated project. Multiple governments are participating and most are relying on multiple sources of funding to pay their share. The project is also a lot more than just a tunnel. It includes replacement of Seattle's seawall, a promenade for pedestrians and cyclists, street improvements, utility improvements, and mass transit improvements.
Here's an overview of where the funding stands right now:
The state still needs to determine if it can raise $400 million through tolling. A study in 2002 suggested that tolling a replacement viaduct would not raise anyting close to $400 million. But the Department of Transportation says this project is significantly different and those differences could change the dynamics of that determine the amount of money tolling could raise. A study will be delivered to the legislature at the beginning of the 2010 session.
The county still needs legislative approval for a one percent motor vehicle excise tax
for it's 190 million dollar share. County Councilmember Bob Ferguson, very often the council's swing vote, has said he would not impose the tax without a public vote.
The city still needs to secure $135 million in federal grants and stimulus money. It was shutout in the first round of stimulus money. The city also needs to create a transportation benefit district which is essentially a taxing district that would impose up to a $20 annual fee on vehicles and raise about $65 million. Seattle City Light is contributing $252 million for all the work on utilities. We're told this will simply come from City LIght's capital expenditures, however, there are persistent rumors the utility will propose a big rate increase this fall. There may be no connection but stand by.
The Port of Seattle has already agreed to contribute $200 million to the project. The new agreement asks it to contribute $300 million. Commissioners have not voted on this amount and there could be some turnover in the composition of the commission this fall that could bear on the outcome of a vote.
So there you go. Is the tunnel a done deal or do you think we'll continue to be embroiled in discussions about how to replace the viaduct?
NOOOOOOOO to tunnel....it doesn't help enough people and costs waaaayyyy toooo much!!!
Darlene the tunnel may not be what the people want but they also did not want any replacement. so you want to wait until the Viaduct collapses and people die be for we replace the Viaduct? and by the way the longer we wait the more it will cost.
Building 2 lanes in each direction will be creating a new traffic jam just like trying to drive thru Seattle on I-5.. If this is to serve the future then it should be at least 3 lanes in each direction..
If this is for the future, then it should be just 1 lane in each direction!
For all the tunnel info you'll ever need...
www.TunnelFacts.com
It is most definitely not a done deal. Who's to pay for overruns? That right there is a built-in lawsuit.
The tunnel through the fill seattle is built on as well as close to the water table in a major earthquake area is an idiotic plan. People did not vote to not do anything - they voted down the two idiotic choices they were given. They never were allowed to vote on whether to replace the viaduct. Those of us outside of seattle were not even given ANY opportunity to vote.
The people emphatically said NO to a tunnel - they did not say no to replacing the viaduct - so why is the tunnel being rammed down our throats??? Because nickels and his whore in olympia decided they knew what was best for us.
If the idiotic tunnel is built, it will be a major disaster when the first accident happens and they have no way of getting fire equipment and ambulances inside the blocked tunnel. It will also be closed anytime the president or any other dignitary visits seattle because it will be a terrorist target.
The very best option for seattle is to rebuild the viaduct and incorporating light rail for the northern parts of the city - including Ballard, Queen Anne, Northgate, etc. This will be able to handle increase in traffic (3 lanes each way) plus light rail which will also decrease traffic.
Seattle can't even afford to pay it's employees and wants them to take ten unpaid days off a year - so why on earth are they even considering an overpriced tunnel which will reduce traffic capacity through the city???
nickels is on his way out and one of the major reasons is the tunnel.
Bob Ferguson is starting to see the light. Lord knows it has taken long enough.
King County voters will not pay for another Seattle grand hole in the ground.
Now that Ron Sims is gone, the county is not in any way required to honor his silly promises.
You are on your own, Seattle. Better figure out how to do this within your own budget.
Bye Bye Nickels. I am sure McGinn will enjoy your office.
So typical of the abject short-sightedness exhibited by our elected officials.... Waste a ton of money and get little in return. Built with insufficient capacity, with no way to expand. Make it wide enough, build a reasonably priced surface option, or build nothing at all! Get rid of Nickels and Gregoire!!!!
They have waited 8 years since the earthquake, and NOTHING has been done. No leadership or foresight. Are we going to wait until the next big one, until the viaduct collapses and people are killed? That would certainly force action, wouldn't it?
In our public speaking college class, we're exercising the idea of a tunnel being built, but instead have it be used for underground light rail, connecting West Seattle from Ballard to Westlake I believe we decided. That way, it's going moreso towards transit, saves gas, and will be easier to implement exits (from what we've determined, no exits would be forged from the viaduct tunnel plan...light rail exits would be cheaper, as it's people that will go in and out of them, not cars)...throwin this out there and see where it'll go.