Seattle needs to honor agreement on tunnel overruns

I APPRECIATE The Seattle Times editorial suggesting the Legislature clarify exactly who should pay for cost overruns to the deep-bore tunnel that will replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct ["Lawmakers should clear tunnel-overrun roadblock," editorial, Nov. 13].

Let me be the first of several legislators to respond, starting with the premise — and the legislation to back it up — that a deal is a deal. Seattle and its leaders agreed to cover any cost overruns, and they should honor that agreement.

The state's transportation budget faced a shortfall of more than $500 million last year due to declining gas-tax revenues in the face of ongoing cost inflation. Projected over our 16-year plan, this amounts to a $6 billion deficit. The Legislature responded by cutting projects in communities across our state. Most projects that are currently on schedule to be built beyond six years have no funding.

If your project is on the books but is not within this time frame, you're probably out of luck.

Not so with the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Legislators felt so compelled to replace the viaduct, out of safety concerns, that even in the thick of the recession we maintained full funding of $2.4 billion for an aboveground replacement.

The city of Seattle, the governor and many Seattle legislators preferred a deep-bore tunnel instead. I admit I, too, would prefer this option but was wary of the cost in light of well-publicized overruns that plagued similar tunnel projects such as Boston's "Big Dig."

What convinced me, and others concerned about limited state resources, was the assurance of Seattle leaders that Seattle taxpayers would foot the bill for any cost overruns. They even agreed to a legislative amendment stating precisely that.

So imagine the discouragement my colleagues and I felt when we learned the amendment was described as meaningless by key players such as both Seattle mayoral finalists and state Rep. Judy Clibborn of Mercer Island, chair of the House Transportation Committee. This without so much as a ruling by a court or an official opinion from the state's attorney general.

The argument is made that it's not fair to charge Seattle taxpayers for cost overruns on a state project — despite the fact that Seattle chose an approach inherent with a history of huge cost overruns. If cost overruns materialize on other projects, it's usually due to labor, material or right-of-way costs — not because of clearly foreseeable, and avoidable, risks.

To keep this project on schedule, I agree with The Times that we should resolve this issue right away. Otherwise we will revert to the state of gridlock that has placed viaduct users at risk for years. No one can afford that, least of all the thousands of daily motorists whose safety is jeopardized by an unsafe viaduct.

To facilitate this, I am drafting legislation that will clarify Seattle's obligation in no uncertain terms and provide them options for local funding sources. This will allow us to proceed as scheduled with this vital public safety project.

Every day we delay this project is one more day that we risk the welfare and lives of thousands of motorists.