According to the Seattle Times article, Gregoire has decided the state will not cover the extra cost of the tunnel. She has ruled out raising the gas tax for the extra cost, but has not ruled out the tunnel option. So it will be up to the Seattle City Council and Nickels to raise the $2 billion++ for the extra cost of the tunnel.
As I posted previously on this thread, it was because she really had no choice, not because of fiscal responsibility.
Posted by Palouse123 at September 25, 2006 03:18 PM | Email ThisI no longer believe what this governor says, as she campaigned on a no new tax basis, and look what we got.
Recently she said that she would work hard to reduce the enormous property tax hikes, we have seen no action on those words either.
She wants the tunnel, has been meeting with the mayor and has a plan for going ahead. This talk is just white noise....The Tunnel will be built, and it will take way way way more than the extra 2 Billion more than planned to build this.
Try 10 Billion +
I'll go on record with that estimate.
Posted by: gs on September 25, 2006 04:18 PMAccording to the article, the funding sources will be a combo of "tolls, local taxes, utility fees and other means". Whatever "other means" is, I do not know.
Posted by: Palouse123 on September 25, 2006 04:28 PMGregoire said she thinks the state is responsible for covering about $460 million of the increased costs - the amount needed to replace the viaduct's current capacity on an elevated structure.
So that's $460 million in additional money from the massive gas tax increase that will go to the viaduct, INSTEAD of one of the other laundry list of projects that they promised.
Posted by: Palouse123 on September 25, 2006 04:31 PM
Right...........
Well I'll tell you what the citizens of Seattle would have said:
Hell No!
Didn't the state already commit 2.4 BILLION to "replace the viaduct's current capacity on an elevated structure"? What's with this additional almost half billion?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 25, 2006 06:34 PMFor the simplicity of the math call it 600,000. Approximately 65% of working age (not necessarily working).
390,000 working age. If 75% are actually working make that 292,500 people living in Seattle actually making a living.
"Likely cost 4.9 billion" lets round to 5 for easier math, knowing that is still low.
That is $17,094.02 per working age adult in Seattle.
17k per tax payer before financing, before cost over runs etc...
Is a 100% cost over run realistic? The Boston Big Dig is in the region of 300%.
At 100% the taxpayer will pony up $34,188.04
Simple interest at 5% for ten years $17,094.02
Total $51,282.05
Joe taxpayer will pay $427.35 a month for the next ten years.
Joe taxpayer will pay $106.83 a week for the next ten years.
Joe taxpayer will pay $15.26 a day for the next ten years.
But hey! that is only 5 lattes a day.
I am not even going to think about a Nonorail type financing scheme.
Posted by: JCM on September 26, 2006 11:27 AMYou know I always thought that we should put up fence bill boards along the freeways and in tunnels. You know like at baseball fields. You could charge more money for space on backed up on ramps and such. We could call them roadboards, and we could levy a roadboard tax. That way the slower traffic moved the more money the government could get from both rent and taxes. If you cut costs and made the tunnel one lane you could install tunnelboards (of course tunnelboard tax)
Posted by: Wally on September 26, 2006 02:46 PMIn Gregoire Speak that means: The most expensive tunnel option is a done deal!
Gregoire says: No new tax to fund her Tunnel option.
In Gregoire speak that means: We'll slap a big toll on it and we will also continue to shovel a half a billion here and there to the Tunnel fund. We'll then have to raise general taxes to fund the government.
Posted by: GS on September 26, 2006 02:49 PMA lot of them insist that the City and the region need the freeway capacity and view the Viaduct as a big ugly mistake that should not be repeated. There is no way the City of Seattle will ever permit building a new, bigger Viaduct along the state's most famous piece of waterfront.
It is this demand by many for more capacity that is driving the decision toward the tunnel. The surface street transit alternative could be underway next month with money on hand and finished within two years.
That's the liberal dems dream - no tunnel, no new Viaduct, just tear it down and work with a new high capacity boulevard.
Posted by: thor on September 26, 2006 09:27 PM
No New taxes necessary
We already have a complete waterfront to wander through!
Who?
Posted by: Palouse on September 27, 2006 07:50 AM