News
Campaign Fizz: Anti-Tunnel Edition
We're sitting down this week with the pro and anti-tunnel campaigns to talk about the tunnel referendum: Why should we vote for or against it and what does it actually do? This afternoon, anti-tunnel campaign standard-bearer Cary Moon (who's been arguing for the surface/transit option since 2003) stopped by PubliCola HQ. Some highlights:
•On the argument that the referendum isn't really a vote on the tunnel itself:
It doesn't determine whether or not a tunnel gets built, but it is a strong message to elected officials in the city and Olympia that the public doesn't want a tunnel. They might not do anything different the next day, but there are still some huge unresolved issues with the tunnel project. Knowing that there's strong opposition might give [officials] a different attitude.
•On why people who say we should "just move forward" and build the tunnel are wrong:
"I totally appreciate that people are exhausted. I am exhausted. Fighting is not fun. But getting to the point of starting a project like this with incomplete funds and serious problems---that's not the finish line. That's the beginning point. Just by getting the contract signed, we're not solving anything---we're opening the door."
•But what's the alternative? Isn't a vote against the tunnel just a vote to do nothing?
We're committed to bringing back a plan. By saying 'no' on the tunnel, we're basing saying that the project does not fit our values. Voting 'no' is a vote to say yes to a solution that's pragmatic and affordable.
•Tom Rasmussen told us the other day that he isn't worried about cost overruns, because the city isn't a party to the contract---only the state and the contractor are.
The risks of overruns is huge, and [tunnel contractor] Tutor Perini is very skilled at litigation. They have a reputation for being fairly ruthless and winning. The idea that we're going to convince them to pay for cost overruns is pretty naive. What will probably happen is there's going to be a big, ugly brawl between [the Seattle Department of Transportation] and them. [Meanwhile], the legislature has said they won't pay another penny [beyond the $2.4 billion it has committed].
•What about people who say the state will just take away all the viaduct replacement money if the city rejects the tunnel:
Legislators have said, we're going to do the right thing for Seattle. We're not going to just tear down the viaduct and walk away. The state money can be used for on the ground improvements to city streets and transit.
•On the argument that the referendum isn't really a vote on the tunnel itself:
It doesn't determine whether or not a tunnel gets built, but it is a strong message to elected officials in the city and Olympia that the public doesn't want a tunnel. They might not do anything different the next day, but there are still some huge unresolved issues with the tunnel project. Knowing that there's strong opposition might give [officials] a different attitude.
•On why people who say we should "just move forward" and build the tunnel are wrong:
"I totally appreciate that people are exhausted. I am exhausted. Fighting is not fun. But getting to the point of starting a project like this with incomplete funds and serious problems---that's not the finish line. That's the beginning point. Just by getting the contract signed, we're not solving anything---we're opening the door."
•But what's the alternative? Isn't a vote against the tunnel just a vote to do nothing?
We're committed to bringing back a plan. By saying 'no' on the tunnel, we're basing saying that the project does not fit our values. Voting 'no' is a vote to say yes to a solution that's pragmatic and affordable.
•Tom Rasmussen told us the other day that he isn't worried about cost overruns, because the city isn't a party to the contract---only the state and the contractor are.
The risks of overruns is huge, and [tunnel contractor] Tutor Perini is very skilled at litigation. They have a reputation for being fairly ruthless and winning. The idea that we're going to convince them to pay for cost overruns is pretty naive. What will probably happen is there's going to be a big, ugly brawl between [the Seattle Department of Transportation] and them. [Meanwhile], the legislature has said they won't pay another penny [beyond the $2.4 billion it has committed].
•What about people who say the state will just take away all the viaduct replacement money if the city rejects the tunnel:
Legislators have said, we're going to do the right thing for Seattle. We're not going to just tear down the viaduct and walk away. The state money can be used for on the ground improvements to city streets and transit.
