ECONOMICS
SCARY NUMBERS
The cost estimates for Viaduct replacement on-site are alarming. The tunnel would cost $4.5 billion, a new elevated Viaduct would cost $3.5 billion, and a six-lane high-speed surface arterial would cost $3 billion. Any of these projects requires a complicated funding package, bringing money from multiple sources: the federal megaprojects allocation, state highway funding, the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) sales tax being prepared for a fall 2005 ballot, funds from the City of Seattle, and from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for repair of the seawall.
Do we want to spend billions on a single corridor to move just 120,000 cars a day?
For the cost of a tunnel we could:
- Purchase 10,000 helicopters, one for every dozen Viaduct commuters and fly them downtown instead
- Build six more pairs of stadiums
- Write every Viaduct commuter a check for $50,000
NO BIG DIG IN SEATTLE
Megaprojects are notoriously over-budget and behind schedule, especially when a tunnel is involved. Despite agencies' best intentions, megaprojects have a calamitous history of inaccurate forecasts, with 50% to 250% cost overruns common, and actual usage often falling far short of estimated need for the facility. Without concurrent independent analysis, agencies and planning consultants sponsoring megaprojects can be tempted to use the data to advocate the project, muddying the cost/benefit picture for elected officials and citizens.
- Channel tunnel: 80% cost overrun, 140% financing costs, ½ the projected revenues
- Denver Airport: 300% cost overrun, 16 months late, ½ the projected traffic
- Big Dig: 250% cost overrun, years late, significant leaks, unfinished
- Bay Bridge: Bid 200% over budget, scrapping preferred design to lower costs
- Sound Transit: 50% over budget to build half promised system, not yet constructed
Even tapping all potential sources, officials have not been able to pull together enough funding for this megaproject. We are already heavily taxed: economists estimate that building this project could suck all available funding for the entire region for the next thirty years. There are several other regional priorities competing for limited transportation funding, and the rest of the state is none-too-keen on being taxed for another expensive project for a limited number of users in Seattle.
Clark Williams-Derry, researcher for Northwest Environment Watch says '… the question of who else is going to pick up the tab for the Viaduct is pretty clear: Nobody. Nobody's going to ride to the city's rescue. If the city of Seattle wants to rebuild the Viaduct, Seattle residents are going to have to pay for the bulk of it.' Perhaps our leaders should realistically assess what we can afford, and focus their efforts on optimizing a solution that is within our budget.
More alarming is the financial hardship a megaproject places on existing downtown businesses. Seven to eleven years of 24/hour a day, 7 day/week of pile drivers, dump trucks, and detours. 1200 businesses are within a block of the project site, and project planners forecast, "The strong will survive and the marginal won't." Is it good for the economy to impose this hardship on businesses located near the construction site, for the travel convenience of businesses located elsewhere?