This Washington

One Question for Sen. Rodney Tom

Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:23:00 -0800

One Question

The Democrats maintained their majority in the state senate this election, but how much power they will really have comes down to who wins the race between Democratic challenger Rep. Tim Probst (D-17, Vancouver) and incumbent Republican Sen. Don Benton (R-17, Vancouver). Currently, Benton leads by 110 votes with still more ballots to be counted. But with such a tight margin a re-count is likely.

"People don't elect parties, they elect people."—Rodney Tom

If Probst eventually loses, conservative Democrats—Sen. Rodney Tom (D-48, Bellevue) and Sen. Tim Sheldon (D-35, Potlatch)—could capsize the party's 26-23 advantage, giving the Republicans two extra votes on key issues, for a 25-24 GOP advantage. It’s happened before, famously, when the Republicans used conservative Democrats such as Tom to stage a budget coup earlier this year.

That means Sen. Tom could be the most powerful man in Olympia next year.

Indeed, Sen. Tom and his conservative Democratic ally Sen. Sheldon told the Tacoma News Tribune they want to enforce a power-sharing agreement, putting committee and leadership votes up to a real floor vote rather than letting the nominal majority party decide.

Today’s One Question for Sen. Tom is: Since the public voted for a Democratic governor and a Democratic house and senate, isn’t that a mandate for Democratic leadership?

Here’s what Tom—who has gotten nearly $200,000 in contributions from the Democratic Party and the caucus' political committee since switching parties in 2006 and running in two elections as a Democrat now—told us:

“In the senate it’s either 27-22 or 26-23. I don’t think it’s a body that demonstrates a mandate. If you look at the state, they like us Democrats because they like our policies but they don’t trust us with their money.

"Look at [Tim Eyman's initiative] 1185 [which requires a two-thirds majority to raise taxes]. It passed by 64 percent. On the advisory votes to tax big oil and big banks, people said, 'No, don’t do those things.'

[In advisory votes on the bank loophole repeal and taxing big oil, voters overwhelmingly disagreed with the legislature.—Editors]

"In order to make this thing work, we’re going to have to get the Republicans involved early."

"That’s the surprise. When people say don’t tax big bank and big oil but they pass 1185 by 64 percent, it’s clear they want to streamline government. If you get everybody in a pool and it’s 'rah, rah, rah,' its not a healthy environment. I don’t see 25 votes in our caucus to get a budget. There are a good number of liberals in [the Democratic] caucus and a handful more fiscally rational members, and you’re not going to get that consensus. In order to make this thing work we’re going to have to get the Republicans involved early.

"People don’t elect parties, they elect people. This is about getting the parties out of the way. It's time to get over the politics and start governing. No one party has all the answers. Rob [McKenna] still got 48 percent of the votes. There’s that many that think the other side does a better job than we do.

"I think [we should discuss] the issues and run from a philosophical majority instead of a caucus majority."

"I don’t think so many of these issues are based on party. I think [we should discuss] the issues and run from a philosophical majority instead of a caucus majority. When you have an issue and you won't bring it up because of party politics, people are tired of that and they should be.

"It’s time to get past that. [Power sharing] gets some of the divisiveness out of politics. I think for a bill to pass it should have several members from the other side that you didn’t get, buying in; I think that’s good legislation.”

Inslee on Pot

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:11:00 -0800

Governor-elect Jay Inslee held a press conference today to announce his transition team—an impressive crew: Microsoft exec Brad Smith (a maxed-out donor to Inslee's former rival Rob McKenna, by the way); WSU President Dr. Elson Floyd; and Renton School District Superintendent Alice Heuschel).

However, the press treated the event more like a chance to do a Q&A with the governor-to-be, and took advantage of the access to ask all sorts of big policy questions. How was he going to balance the budget without new revenue (my question at the press coference)? And how was he going to save the ferry system?

And, of course, how was he going to deal with I-502, the pot legalization measure that voters passed last Tuesday?

Inslee in high shcool

It's funny to hear Inslee—who was against the measure, but surely benefited from the liberal turnout— talk about pot. The guy is an admitted square. (In an Inslee profile I wrote for the magazine, I asked Inslee—who came of age during the late-60s—about that notorious era. He told me: “I did have the scraggliest beard at the University of Washington, probably, but I was not part of the drug scene. And I, incredibly, to my great, great dissatisfaction, didn’t enjoy the music.... We had the biggest musical explosion since Beethoven took his first music lesson, and I wasn’t part of that.”)

Here's what he said today about the state's plan to license, sell, and tax pot, much like former state-run liquor stores:

My belief is Washington has worked its will. The voters have spoken. I was not supportive of the initiative but I’m going to be fully supportive of protecting, defending, and implementing the will of the voter—which will essentially allow the use of recreational marijuana in our state.

So I will be working to a very rational, mature ways to convince the [Obama] administration that it's in the best interest, not only of our state, but in our country, to allow our state to move forward in this regard.

And I believe that makes sense for the country for this reason: We have a principal of federalism in our country that has worked well. We’ve allowed states to be incubators of new ideas of, and I think it’ll serve the nation well to allow the state of Washington and Colorado to serve as incubators of a new policy. And I don’t think there’s any reason that that’s antithetical to national security or interstate commerce. This is a local decision of a local state, and we’re going to do everything we can in this administration in that regard and hopefully that’ll happen. I think there’s some positive signs that we’ll be able to prevail…….

I don’t want to be too optimistic about this but my sense is there’s an honest consideration going on in the administration. My sense is we probably won’t have a clear cut answer to that for some time, but I look at that as a good sign. I’m going to look at that as a glass-half-full here. I have not communicated with the administration. It’s a gut check, glass-half-full, the door remains open to allow our state to look forward as we have in so many ways.

One Question for Ed Murray

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:18:00 -0800

One Question

Actually, we're going with seven questions today.

Seattle state Sen. Ed Murray (D-43, Capitol Hill) was named senate majority leader by his caucus yesterday afternoon.

With two conservative Democrats in the caucus, including Sen. Rodney Tom (D-48, Bellevue), who may capsize the Democrats' ability to govern, we're not sure if this is good news or bad news for Murray, who's currently enjoying his 15 minutes in the wake of the gay marriage vote. (Murray, who is gay, was the sponsor of the gay marriage legislation that voters just signed off on on Election Day.)

We had a lot of questions for Murray, including whether or not he's running for mayor.

Here's an exact transcript of our email exchange.

PubliCola: Have you talked to Sen. Tom about sticking with the caucus on key votes such as the budget? Do you have a strategy to deal with him?

Murray: I have chatted with him. He reaffirmed on most issues he sees himself as a Democrat. It remains to be seen if we can pull together as a caucus. The senate has always been a place of small majorities and members on both sides occasionally voting against their caucus

If it means higher taxes for a school district like the one I represent without additional revenue, then I will remain a no.

PubliCola:What are the major "To Dos" besides K-12 funding on your list? Specific legislation?

Murray: K-12 and Higher education. Because they are key to our goals of rebuilding and expanding the middle class.

PubliCola: What is your position on the levy swap [having the state take over local school levies, which would amount to a redistribution of property taxes so that richer districts pay more]? Should it be part of the K-12 funding equation?

Murray: If it means higher taxes for a school district like the one I represent without additional revenue, then I will remain a 'No'.

PubliCola: Signals are coming in that the tunnel (sorry!) is going to be over budget. Tolling for one is evidently falling $200 million short of the predicted $400 million. Do you support lifting the $2.4 billion cap? In general, how do you see paying for the tunnel?

Murray: Several points. We need to understand what has caused cost overruns. We had an independent group tell us the financial plan was solid. What happened? What is the status of the contingency funds we originally built into the plan? At some point we will need a new transportation package and issues such as the tunnel and mitigation on 520 need to be included.

PubliCola: Name something you'll get done w a 27-22 margin vs. the 26-23 margin.

Murray: I think given the political diversity of our caucus depending on 25 votes to pass anything will be very difficult.

PubliCola: Did the caucus have any concerns about you running for mayor? I heard you would not get support if people thought you were running for mayor?

Murray: Some members did, others point out that majority leaders and speakers run for other offices all the time.

PubliCola: Are you running for mayor?

Murray:

Fin

Optimistic Inslee Names Transition Team

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:35:00 -0800

Democratic governor-elect Jay Inslee's first formal press conference today would have driven his former rival, Republican Rob McKenna, crazy.

It's not just that it was Inslee up at the podium in the spot where McKenna so badly wanted to be.

It's that Inslee spoke in the same old broad terms about "innovation," "change agents," and "the wave of the future"—and tacked to his goofy, vague metaphors ("when you climb a mountain you take one step at a time" ... "if you don't understand you're in it [competition], you won't win it")—that made McKenna apoplectic during their recent debates.

To add insult to injury: Inslee held the press conference to announce his transition team co-chairs, which included one maxed-out McKenna donor ($3,200), Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith.

Along with Smith, Inslee—holding court in front of the TV cameras and reporters on the 26th floor of the Westin Office Building in downtown Seattle—named Renton School District Superintendent Dr. Mary Alice Heuschel and the President of Washington State University Dr. Elson Floyd to his team.

With the state facing a $1 billion shortfall in the next biennium, the roomful of reporters pressed Inslee for specifics.The trio—all three of whom Inslee praised for having "great experience leading large organizations" and bringing "innovations and creativity"—is tasked with helping Inslee recruit cabinet members, organizing Inslee's office structure, and evidently, re-conceptualizing how government works.

Inslee said he hoped the likes of Microsoft's Smith would "entice" people from the private sector "to experience the adventure of public service."

Given a projected state budget shortfall of $1 billion in the next biennium, the roomful of reporters pressed Inslee for specifics. One reporter, for example, asked him how he was going to address the underfunded (negative $44 million by the end of 2015) ferry system. Inslee simply said: "This team is going to help me put in place innovative leadership throughout state government including in our ferry system. We know that there are great challenges there, and we will find a solution to them at the right moment."

I reminded him that current Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire has repeatedly said both Inslee's and McKenna's plans to balance the budget while meeting the state's key commitments didn't add up and that the state needed new revenue.

Inslee said: "We are starting a team today to help grow an economy that can increase revenues for the state of Washington. What these three leaders are going to help me do [is] help bring people to the state that can grow our economy rapidly, which will put 300,000 people on the track to get back to work which can and will increase our revenues."

After one reporter accused him of not answering my question, and after he was asked if he would send a tax package to voters. Inslee said: "I believe economic growth has to be the ultimate solution to our fiscal problem. The reason we have a $4.2 billion reduction in revenue—that was caused by Wall Street—is that we have people out of work."

GOP Senate Candidate Fails to Win Restraining Order Against Ex-Employee

Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:00:00 -0700

This post has been updated with comments from senate candidate Brad Toft.

Fifth District Republican state senate candidate Brad Toft, running for the seat being vacated by Republican Cheryl Pflug, failed today to win a permanent restraining order against Kelly Ann Spratt, the woman who accused Toft of "jokingly" swinging a bat at her head when she worked for him at a Bellevue mortgage firm. A King County District Court judge ruled today that Toft's request for a restraining order was baseless and, PubliCola hears, said Spratt was exercising her right to free speech by making statements about Toft.

Toft accused Spratt of harassing him through emails and mentions on Twitter, by asking him "editorializing questions" at a political event, and by showing up at another event where he was speaking and making threatening comments to his wife. (Spratt did send Toft an email making fun of his decision to run for senate and referred to his Twitter page in several tweets calling him "shady," "disreputable," and a liar).

Toft said in a statement today that he had received a "personal agreement" that Spratt would not contact him in the future. "I feel vindicated in my attempts to protect my family from additional harassment from Ms. Spratt,” Toft said. "I believe, however, her smears are politically motivated. Now, it has the backing of a court agreement.”

Aside from Ms. Spratt’s vigorous complaints to the contrary, her First Amendment rights are protected.

Spratt has not responded to a request for comment. We have a call out to Toft as well.

In his request for a protective order, Toft said he was "concerned that [Spratt] may do something drastic. In a day when acts of violence occur with unfortunate regularity, this order is necessary."

Just before he announced he was running, Toft sought to have court records sealed in a civil case against him by College Pro Painters, which sued Toft for failing to pay a $10,000 franchise fee. (Toft eventually had $4,000 in wages garnished to settle the case.)

Toft also has a well-documented history of conflicts with his former colleagues, including his failure to pay thousands of dollars in wages to an employee and the baseball-bat incident, which he has denied ever happened. And he has been jailed at least once for failing to respond to bench warrants for a criminal traffic citation for driving with a suspended license in the mid-1990s, receiving a suspended jail sentence of 90 days and a fine of $1,000 which he did not pay until after it went into collections, in 2002.

Late last month, a judge denied Toft's initial request for a temporary restraining order, concluding that there were "no threats of violence" or "immediate threat[s] to Toft.

Toft is running against Democrat Mark Mullet, a local entrepreneur who owns a Zeek's Pizza and a Ben & Jerry's in Issaquah. Mullet won the top-two primary 54.4 to 47.8 in a district that leans heavily Republican.

One Question for the House Republicans

Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:00:00 -0700

File this one under Mayor Mike McGinn told you so.

There was some startling news this week: State Rep. Judy Clibborn (D-41, Mercer Island), the state house transportation committee chair, told us that she would lift the $2.4 billion state spending cap on the tunnel.

You will remember that Mayor Mike McGinn, in his campaign against the tunnel, made a big deal about cost overruns on the $4.6 billion waterfront tunnel project (and about—as now seems certain—the fact that there'd probably be a tolling revenue shortfall compared to projections.)

Clibborn's inclination to lift the cap is a straight up acknowledgment that McGinn was right about tunnel costs.

However, at a cursory glance, it also would seem to allay McGinn's fears. The cap, he had argued, put Seattle at risk to pick up the extra costs. With the cap gone, the state would now be on the hook—not Seattle. No?

Not so fast.

Where would the extra money come from? Other state projects? That's certainly the implication of lifting the cap.

But good luck getting legislators from around the state, particularly Republicans, to sign off on taking money away from their own projects for a fancy Seattle tunnel.

Ranking Republican on the house transportation committee, Rep. Mike Armstrong

Today's Cola "One Question" is for the ranking Republican on Clibborn's house transportation committee, state Rep. Mike Armstrong (R-12, Wenatchee). Here's what Rep. Armstrong said when we asked him if he would go along with raising the $2.4 billion cap on the tunnel.

I would hope it's not her intent to do that. I don't think that's her intent. We do not want that project to become a Christmas tree for everything and anything for the city of Seattle. We put that [cap] in place because we wanted to be specific about the tunnel project. We were told adamantly by the department of transportation that there would not be a cost overrun on this project. ... If you lift it, everybody and anybody going to want everything under the sun.

To lift the cap so the city of Seattle can come to us and want money for the seawall or for transit or to pay for utility movement, those are non-starters for me.

The tolling money ... initially we were led to believe the tolling the tunnel—just the tunnel—would bring in something like $400 million over the life of the project, and it's clear that is not the case It looks more like it's half of that. But again that tolling project was just to help the city's portion of what they wanted to do—not the state's portion. I'm not willing to lift the cap based on just that.

The fact of the matter is: I hope you got it loud and clear. I'm not willing to lift that cap. I'm a no.

And so: If you can't lift the cap, and the state is, in fact, in a crunch to cover the tunnel bill (as Clibborn acknowledges), that brings us right back to McGinn's worst fear.

State Transportation Chair: State Could Lift Spending Cap on Tunnel

Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:00:00 -0700

State house transportation committee chair Judy Clibborn (D-41) confirmed a rumor this afternoon that state legislators might consider lifting the $2.4 billion cap on the state's contribution to tunnel funding, and that toll financing could ultimately end up at less than the current $200 million commitment----adding, however, that "tolling modeling is a really difficult thing to do, and I want them to run some more scenarios" before landing on a final tolling rate. "There will be a toll on that tunnel," she says.

Mayor Mike McGinn has argued that the $2.4 billion cap leaves the city on the hook for any tunnel cost overruns; state legislators have argued all along that although they believe there won't be any cost overruns, the state will pay for the entire project, whatever happens.

"We will pay for whatever it takes to do that tunnel. ... That's always been the state's responsibility," Clibborn says. "A cap was put on, and I wouldn't take the cap off at this point." But she also calls the $2.4 billion cap "a political thing" included in the legislation to ensure that tunnel contractors wouldn't seek a "windfall profit" if no cap was in place.

Clibborn also threw cold water on a suggestion made by Transportation Choices Coalition director Rob Johnson, a member of the state transportation department's tolling committee, that the state might consider imposing tolls before drivers actually enter the new Alaskan Way tunnel---before cars can exit 99 at Seattle Center, for example---as a way of generating more revenue and reducing diversion of cars onto downtown streets.

Last week, the state department of transportation announced that, according to its models, that a tunnel toll of any size will create significant diversion of traffic onto city streets, and that only one of its likely tolling scenarios stands a chance of generating the $200 million (down from an initial pledge of $400 million) the state has said it expects to generate from tolls.

"We are not talking about" charging tolls on people who don't actually use the tunnel, Clibborn says. Comparing the idea to "cordon tolling," or charging drivers to enter the center city, Clibborn continues, "I’m not interested in that at all. It doesn’t play well with the public, and it steps on our message about [the fact that] we’re tolling to manage the existing and new systems, and I think it’s also some people’s biggest fear."

One Potential Solution to Tunnel Tolling Shortfall: Toll Non-Tunnel Users?

Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:00:00 -0700

As we reported last week, the state Department of Transportation (WSDOT) now believes that any toll on the new Alaskan Way tunnel will produce significant diversion of cars onto downtown city streets, and that only high tolls---between $3.25 and $4 each way---can, in theory, produce the $200 million in toll revenues the state is banking on to build the $4 billion tunnel. (Imaginary quote from Mayor Mike McGinn: "TOLD YA!!")

At last week's meeting of the state's tunnel tolling committee, committee member and Transportation Choices Coalition director Rob Johnson suggested one possible solution: What if the state, instead of tolling just the tunnel, started charging tolls before drivers arrived at the tunnel itself---preventing them from

avoiding tolls by diverting onto city streets? "It might result in more revenue and less diversion," Johnson said at the meeting.[pullquote]What if the state, instead of tolling just the tunnel, started charging tolls before drivers arrived at the tunnel itself?[/pullquote]

Contacted today, Johnson told PubliCola he sees the idea as a way of increasing funding for projects that help cyclists, pedestrians, and transit riders (as well, of course, as paying for the tunnel itself).

"If we’re going to create significant diversion, we’re going to need significant resources to mitigate that diversion, in the form of better transit, better bike and pedestrian connections, and better knitting together of the street network," Johnson said.

(Editorializing here, but given the state's historical animosity to paying for non-car-centric transportation projects, that prediction seems a little ... optimistic)

Anyway, Johnson told us the state's tolling projections are coming in low because it's too easy for people to simply drive around the tunnel. But what if, he said, the state charged a nominal toll (say, $1) well before either tunnel entrance---say, for example, at the Seattle Center exit on the north end---and charged the full

toll for drivers who use the tunnel? That would prevent drivers from avoiding tolls completely, and perhaps give them an incentive to stay on 99 (since they've paid part of the tunnel toll already, maybe it would be worth it to pay a little more for a quicker route through downtown).

"It's sort of a segment approach to the tunnel, as opposed to only paying if you drive through the tunnel itself," Johnson said.

But what about the (inevitable) argument that, by tolling on the tunnel approaches, the state would be charging people for a facility they aren't even using?

"That's a great question," Johnson said. "But part of the public benefit of this whole project is opening up the waterfront. There's a lot of external benefits to getting that traffic off the streets and into the tunnel."

Tolling beyond the tunnel entrances themselves would require a change in state law authorizing tunnel construction; we have a call out to state house transportation committee chair Judy Clibborn---who has previously opposed congestion pricing schemes like the one in London, where drivers have to pay a toll to enter downtown---to find out what she thinks of the idea.

Tuesday Jolt: Two-Thirds Rule Debated in Supreme Court

Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:00:00 -0700

You can't read too much into oral arguments—this afternoon, the state Supreme Court took up Tim Eyman's I-1053, which requires a two-thirds vote of the state legislature to raise taxes—(so no winner or loser), but nonetheless, there were certainly some Jolt-worthy moments.

The line of the day goes to Justice Tom Chambers, who, relaying his question through Justice Mary Fairhurst via a passed note (Chambers has difficulty speaking due to throat cancer), skewered the Attorney General's argument in favor of the two-thirds rule.

The constitutional question comes down to this: Does Article 2, Section 22 of the state constitution—which says bills must be passed by a majority vote—set a floor or a ceiling on the number of votes?

The opponents of the two-thirds rule (a batch of Democratic legislators and education advocates) argue that the provision is a ceiling---that is, there's no wiggle room. (They won the argument earlier this year in King County Superior Court.) They cite the fact that there are 17 instances in the constitution that specify higher voting thresholds (such as issuing bonds or passing a constitutional amendment), making it clear that higher voting thresholds need to be spelled out.

Pushing for a more flexible reading, the AG's office, which defended the law in court today, argues that the majority requirement is merely a floor.

However, by that reasoning, all kinds of arbitrary (or ridiculous) requirements could be added on to legislation. Justice Debra Stephens was the first to make fun of the AG's reasoning, asking AG counsel Maureen Hart if "Joe Smith of Walla Walla has to sign off" on every bill?

Chambers upped the ante, making the point a bit more colorfully. He wanted to know if voters could pass a rule saying Santa Claus had to sign off on legislation.

Fans of the rule (specifically, Tim Eyman's I-1053, which passed in 2010 and was the literal subject of today's hearing), also got treated to a zinger. Building Industry Association of Washington-backed Justice James Johnson (who made no secret of his animosity toward the anti-1053 team) riffed off anti-1053 attorney Paul Lawrence's reference earlier in the proceedings to "the elephant in the courtroom" (itself a reference to a previous State Supreme Court opinion that had criticized the Court for sidestepping the two-thirds question).

Tim Eyman outside the Supreme Court after today's arguments

Johnson corrected him: "The voters were the real elephant in the room."

Johnson was referring to the fact that voters have repeatedly passed the two-thirds rule. Before I-1053, there was I-960. And before 960, there was 601. (This year, Eyman is trying to reaffirm the rule—the legislature can repeal initiatives every two years—with I-1185.)

Johnson's zinger was Eyman's favorite moment of the day. Smiling outside the courtroom after the hearing, he told me: "That was the best line of the day. Nobody is talking about what the voters want."

I also asked Lawrence about Johnson's line. "The voters have a role here," he said, "they can elect legislators, and they can pass initiatives. But the initiative process is not an exercise in public polling. It is a right of the people to pass laws—laws that are constitutional."

Like we said, there's no way to issue a winner or loser based on reading the tea leaves from oral arguments, but we did find a winner elsewhere today—Landlords.

Today's announcement that the city had reached a $1.24 million settlement with Waste Management, the city's main garbage hauler, included news that every Seattle Public Utilities customer would receive a rebate of $10 to make up for eight days of lost trash service in November. Well ... some customers.

Renters who live in apartments that either include trash pickup in their base rent or charge a special trash surcharge won't see any rebate at all, despite the fact that they, like homeowners, didn't get their trashed picked up for eight days in a row.

Instead, that rebate will go to landlords, who will receive a $50 rebate for every Dumpster on properties they own, whether they live at those properties or not.

State Tolling Scenarios Leave Tunnel Budget Shortfall

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:00:00 -0700

A study by the state Department of Transportation looked at a variety of tolling scenarios on the new Alaskan Way tunnel, ranging from no tolls to a "high toll" scenario with tolls ranging from $1 to $4 each way, and calculated how much money they would take in, factoring in the amount it would cost the state to pay to operate and maintain the tunnel, collect tolls, repair and potentially replace the tunnel, and insure the facility.

Their conclusion: High tolls (up to $4) would bring in more than enough to pay for the state's $200 million commitment, but would lead to unacceptable traffic diversion. Meanwhile, low or no tolls would fail to pay for the $200 million portion of the tunnel that is supposed to be funded by tolls---and even low tolls would still lead to significant diversion of cars onto downtown surface streets.

The viaduct currently carries about 110,000 vehicles a day; without any tolling, the state anticipates the tunnel would carry around 22,000 vehicles a day.

The state looked at a number of different tolling options; all, in one way or another, came up short. In a scenario where tolls were $4 southbound and $3.25 northbound, diversion rates---the percentage of drivers who would decide to take alternative routes---would be 34 percent northbound and 60 percent southbound. In the opposite scenario, where tolls maxed out at $2.25, revenues would be just $80 million, far less than the state needs to finance the tunnel---and between 22 and 37 percent of traffic would still divert to other routes. In the middle scenario, with tolls maxing out $3.25, net revenues would be between $170 million and $210---theoretically, though not necessarily, enough to pay for the promised $200 million state contribution. And diversion in that scenario would range between 32 and 51 percent.

However, members of the committee acknowledged that their models didn't factor in people who decide to take the bus, change their travel patterns, or stay home instead of driving.

Nor did they consider any scenarios in which the maximum toll dipped below $2.25 each way---a very real possibility, given state legislators' reluctance to charge substantial tolls to drive through the tunnel. "The anticipation is that there will be more scenarios and more examples run at the end of October," Seattle Department of Transportation viaduct replacement program manager Bob Chandler said. Chandler said the committee plans to look at other scenarios---including tolls higher than zero but lower than $2.25---as it considers its options in the coming months.