Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, June 8, 2010
Transportation Councilman Seeks to Put Brakes on Transit Master Plan
Posted by Dominic Holden on Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:32 AM
In case you weren't certain, the culture at City Hall is now completely toxic. City council member Tom Rasmussen has introduced a bill that would prevent the mayor from updating the Transit Master Plan without the council's approval. Reports STB:
The bill says that while the Mayor already has the authority to coordinate with the City “Council and Council Central Staff to frame for Council review and approval the vision, goals, schedule, and scope of work to update the,” the bill would disallow the executive from actually working to ”implement the update” to the Master Plan “until authorized by future ordinance.” [...]Rasmussen may be trying to separate the Mayor’s light rail election promise from an update of the Transit Master Plan, which would otherwise focus on how to align bus service in the coming years. Another motive could be a turf war: in effect, letting the Mayor know that the council should have a big say in the parameters guiding the Transit Master Plan update. Note the “Council review and approval” in the bill language.
I get that the city council believes the mayor is a bumbling dishrag, spitting out ideas without vetting them and rolling out proposals before polishing them for prime time, but it's unclear just how this strategy plays out in the council's favor. The council has come down on the side of not planning for light-rail accommodations on the 520 bridge, not addressing the question of what happens if cost overruns occur on the deep bore tunnel, and now hamstringing the mayor's office from studying light rail to Ballard and West Seattle. Seattle loves light rail. Seattle hates cost overruns. Seattle wants a more walkable, bikeable, train-rideable city. The council has legitimate practical concerns, but it seems to be taking an unpopular tack in Seattle's transit planning debate.
3
Hydroplane buses are for weenies. I demand high speed pneumatic tubes connecting all major civic buildings and with outlets every few blocks. You step in at Westlake like an elevator, push the "Safeco field" or "Broadway & John" buttons and whoooooooooosh.
McGinn and Conlin are un-American because I can't do that.
McGinn and Conlin are un-American because I can't do that.
4
@3 Well Sir, that is obviously where we differ. Pneumatic tubes to hell they are! The costs will bury us all!
5
"seattle loves..." "seattle hates..." there's no chance that seattle isn't quite as monolithic and simple as we would like to assert, is there?
6
@4 Sir, I shall see your hydroplane bus proposition in hell! A person in every tube! A tube in every garage!
7
Actually, the Council has stated that the bridge should go ahead as planned on the east side, and changes made to the interchanges and design on the west side. The bridge plan itself actually does allow for potential light rail in the future, although, admittedly, the cost constraints would be significant. However, is light rail really the way to go across 520, or are buses and BRT a better option?
The cost overruns question has been answered time and time again - the proviso in the cost replacement language from the State is unenforceable, not jiving with State Law. Pete Holmes, the entire City Council, State Legislators...hell, I think I even read somewhere that Judy Clibborn...agree with that statement. The question will then become, if there are overruns that exceed the contingency budget (over $400mm), and the bonding capability due to the tolls (another $400mm), even with bids coming in 25% below what was expected for the early portions of the project, what happens. Technically - work stops until the legislature or the feds put more money into it. Seattle will never have to directly pay for the tunnel, and the only person who doesn't believe this is McGinn.
And the City voted five times on trains from West Seattle to Ballard via Downtown, and after the cost realities were realized, monorail went down. While Seattle voted overwhelmingly for the light rail line from SeaTac to Seattle, ridership does not indicate that Seattle "loves" light rail. Perhaps you have a poll of some sort that will say otherwise?
The point remains that people support the tunnel, according to the last polls that I saw.
The only pro-tunnel candidate who lost in 2009 was someone who actually preferred a retrofit (not a rebuild), and that was Mr. Rosencrantz. And it is easily arguable that his tunnel position had no bearing whatsoever on his loss.
We'll find out, of course, how unpopular the council members who are really going toe to toe with the Mayor are in 2011, when we have five council members up for reelection. This would be a good time for the Mayor to focus on getting allies on the council, and if he can't do that...well, he should enjoy two more years of a great office view.
More...
The cost overruns question has been answered time and time again - the proviso in the cost replacement language from the State is unenforceable, not jiving with State Law. Pete Holmes, the entire City Council, State Legislators...hell, I think I even read somewhere that Judy Clibborn...agree with that statement. The question will then become, if there are overruns that exceed the contingency budget (over $400mm), and the bonding capability due to the tolls (another $400mm), even with bids coming in 25% below what was expected for the early portions of the project, what happens. Technically - work stops until the legislature or the feds put more money into it. Seattle will never have to directly pay for the tunnel, and the only person who doesn't believe this is McGinn.
And the City voted five times on trains from West Seattle to Ballard via Downtown, and after the cost realities were realized, monorail went down. While Seattle voted overwhelmingly for the light rail line from SeaTac to Seattle, ridership does not indicate that Seattle "loves" light rail. Perhaps you have a poll of some sort that will say otherwise?
The point remains that people support the tunnel, according to the last polls that I saw.
The only pro-tunnel candidate who lost in 2009 was someone who actually preferred a retrofit (not a rebuild), and that was Mr. Rosencrantz. And it is easily arguable that his tunnel position had no bearing whatsoever on his loss.
We'll find out, of course, how unpopular the council members who are really going toe to toe with the Mayor are in 2011, when we have five council members up for reelection. This would be a good time for the Mayor to focus on getting allies on the council, and if he can't do that...well, he should enjoy two more years of a great office view.
8
@7
Care to link to those polls?
The point remains that people support the tunnel, according to the last polls that I saw.
Care to link to those polls?
9
Here's one of them. It's a bit older, but I have yet to see any poll that contradicts this one. I'll look for more, of course.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo…
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo…
10
I love how "the atmosphere is toxic" is presented passively here, as though the new mayor's hamfisted pushy fuck-you attitude did nothing to create the conditions for this sort of (mild) pushback from the council. Honestly, any time that man doesn't get 100% of what he wants when he wants it the mayor's messaging team (hel-lo!) goes haywire.
11
@9, great, but that poll doesn't ask anything about who will PAY for the tunnel.
"Currently, there is a plan to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel. Do you support that if Seattle residents have to pay the tax burden for any cost overruns, but the rest of the state does not? Or oppose?"
THATS the question that no one is willing to poll on.
"Currently, there is a plan to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel. Do you support that if Seattle residents have to pay the tax burden for any cost overruns, but the rest of the state does not? Or oppose?"
THATS the question that no one is willing to poll on.
12
@11 -
That is a push poll question, plain and simple.
However, the fact remains that any State funding would include a similar line in the bill, because that is the only way to get funding for this megaproject (along with 520) through the State Legislature.
It has been made very clear that Washington State will not pay for the surface street option. Any polling asking if Seattle Voters would support Seattle residents paying for overruns on the tunnel would also have to ask if they were willing to foot the ENTIRE bill for the surface street option, which is estimated to cost well over $3 billion.
That is a push poll question, plain and simple.
However, the fact remains that any State funding would include a similar line in the bill, because that is the only way to get funding for this megaproject (along with 520) through the State Legislature.
It has been made very clear that Washington State will not pay for the surface street option. Any polling asking if Seattle Voters would support Seattle residents paying for overruns on the tunnel would also have to ask if they were willing to foot the ENTIRE bill for the surface street option, which is estimated to cost well over $3 billion.
13
@12 -
Pardon me saying so, but completely missing the point with the cost overrun thing. The question isn't whether the law is enforceable. I don't really give a fuck about that, and neither does any Joe Schmoe on the street. The question is, if the state clearly won't pay them, and the city clearly won't pay them . . . what happens when they happen?
Pardon me saying so, but completely missing the point with the cost overrun thing. The question isn't whether the law is enforceable. I don't really give a fuck about that, and neither does any Joe Schmoe on the street. The question is, if the state clearly won't pay them, and the city clearly won't pay them . . . what happens when they happen?
14
"Pardon me saying so, but completely missing the point with the cost overrun thing." =
"Pardon me for saying so, but you're completely missing the point with the cost overrun thing."
Thank you, SLOG, for not saving my edits post-preview.
"Pardon me for saying so, but you're completely missing the point with the cost overrun thing."
Thank you, SLOG, for not saving my edits post-preview.
15
@13 -
And that is the important question.
Realistically, it is a matter that would be decided by the Courts (in the event there are significant cost overruns). The State would argue that the language in the legislation, along with the ongoing partnership with the City, County and Port, mean the City would have to pay the overruns.
The City would argue that the State cannot force a municipality (or any other local government) to pay for overruns on a State project.
The question would then fall to what exactly went over budget. If the seawall replacement was the part that went over budget, or the replacement of Alaskan Way, or the waterfront, or the utility relocation, then the City gets the bill for however much went over budget.
If it's directly tunnel related (Highway related), then the State is responsible.
If an overrun on the tunnel caused a cost overrun on a City project, then the State would likely get the bill.
The enforceability does matter at that point.
Of course, this is all hypothetical. Again, to date, all bids are coming in well below original estimations. Constantly attempting to delay the project will only make it cost more, especially considering the State and City currently benefit from the stale economy re: getting bids for the various pieces of the project.
And that is the important question.
Realistically, it is a matter that would be decided by the Courts (in the event there are significant cost overruns). The State would argue that the language in the legislation, along with the ongoing partnership with the City, County and Port, mean the City would have to pay the overruns.
The City would argue that the State cannot force a municipality (or any other local government) to pay for overruns on a State project.
The question would then fall to what exactly went over budget. If the seawall replacement was the part that went over budget, or the replacement of Alaskan Way, or the waterfront, or the utility relocation, then the City gets the bill for however much went over budget.
If it's directly tunnel related (Highway related), then the State is responsible.
If an overrun on the tunnel caused a cost overrun on a City project, then the State would likely get the bill.
The enforceability does matter at that point.
Of course, this is all hypothetical. Again, to date, all bids are coming in well below original estimations. Constantly attempting to delay the project will only make it cost more, especially considering the State and City currently benefit from the stale economy re: getting bids for the various pieces of the project.
16
Back when I was an innocent political virgin, I voted 5 fucking times for the dream of a monorail that would link West Seattle to downtown and Ballard.
That project died because of its perceived unaffordability. So how in the hell is it a good idea to table plans that have been a decade in the making to open the discussion to light rail across the lake, and out to West Seattle? You think the costs that emerge from 3 to 5 years of study will be any easier to swallow than the the plans on the table? I don't believe the mayor is being upfront with his agenda, and setting up dream projects that will not get funding as a stalking horse is a chicken shit maneuver.
That project died because of its perceived unaffordability. So how in the hell is it a good idea to table plans that have been a decade in the making to open the discussion to light rail across the lake, and out to West Seattle? You think the costs that emerge from 3 to 5 years of study will be any easier to swallow than the the plans on the table? I don't believe the mayor is being upfront with his agenda, and setting up dream projects that will not get funding as a stalking horse is a chicken shit maneuver.
18
I forget - when did Seattle City Council put the Billionaires' Tunnel up for a vote ...
Cause I sure didn't vote for it, nor did 70 percent of Seattle Citizen Voters.
Cause I sure didn't vote for it, nor did 70 percent of Seattle Citizen Voters.
19
@3 for the pneumatic tube win!
That said, I'm in favor of solar-powered robot crab vehicles. They can climb up walls.
That said, I'm in favor of solar-powered robot crab vehicles. They can climb up walls.
20
*BEEP*
Hello, this is Robodialer 2000. Please help us with this poll.
If you are Male press 1, Female press 2.
You pressed 4. You are a cat.
If you are in favor of a free tunnel being built by the state press 1, If you want to build a giant noise machine over downtown using all your money for p0rn press 2, If you want everyone to walk because you are a sadist press 3.
You pressed 3. Your insane support for the Surface Plus Transit option has been noted and will be ignored.
If you think we should do what our billionaire non-citizen masters want press 1, If you hate America press 2.
You pressed 2. Are you sure you don't want to vote for the Tunnel?
Hello, this is Robodialer 2000. Please help us with this poll.
If you are Male press 1, Female press 2.
You pressed 4. You are a cat.
If you are in favor of a free tunnel being built by the state press 1, If you want to build a giant noise machine over downtown using all your money for p0rn press 2, If you want everyone to walk because you are a sadist press 3.
You pressed 3. Your insane support for the Surface Plus Transit option has been noted and will be ignored.
If you think we should do what our billionaire non-citizen masters want press 1, If you hate America press 2.
You pressed 2. Are you sure you don't want to vote for the Tunnel?
21
Dead on:
(Is there something toxic in the Stranger's newsroom? I'm not the first one to observe that getting out of there seems to have unmuddled the thinking of more than one reporter.)
...we’ve taken to calling [McGinn] Hugo Chavez here at Cola HQ thanks to his constant claim that “the people” support him...
(Is there something toxic in the Stranger's newsroom? I'm not the first one to observe that getting out of there seems to have unmuddled the thinking of more than one reporter.)
22
I'm pretty confident that the over-run language will be addressed this coming winter. The result could be to re-inforce current intimations and express refusal to allocate further funds. Either way, Seattle electeds are gambling with our future.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (22) RSS