Deep-Bore Tunnel Funding Still a Hot Topic

Here's Seattle City Councilmember Tim Burgess's sanguine take on the prospect of deep-bore tunnel cost overruns. Writing on his personal blog, he says:

On the cost overruns challenge the Mayor continues to raise I would just remind everyone that this is a state highway, a state designed and managed project, a state selected contractor, and a state paid-for project. […] The City of Seattle is not on the hook for any of the tunnel’s direct costs.

Mr. Burgess is not in the legislature, but surely he reads the blogs. In Olympia, as the Slog's Dominic Holden reports, they have a different perspective:

On January 14, state senator Jim Kastama (D-25) introduced a bill clarifying that contracts for the tunnel builders cannot be signed until the City of Seattle provides a funding mechanism to pay for cost overruns.

It may be that Burgess believes the state's contract with the tunnel contractors will place the liability for overruns on the contractors. But until that option is put into practice, overruns are Seattle's business, and it's odd to go public with "reminders" that are so misleading. I have emailed his office to see about clarification.

"Spin" surrounds the deep-bore tunnel (coming from both sides, as it does). Proponents talk about the "100,000 cars per day" a surface/transit arrangement would drop onto city streets, while glossing over the fact that the tunnel caters only to traffic that bypasses downtown. (Today, 85 percent of Viaduct trips stop and start in Seattle.)

But yes, the tunnel also will drop tens of thousands of cars onto city streets, and even a certain amount of freight. In fact, in announcing $30 million in TIGER funds for the Mercer Street corridor, Sen. Patty Murray specifically called out how it would "improve port and highway access."

(Blogging Georgetown calls bullshit on this, but there's some potential truth involved. Vehicles hauling hazardous or combustible materials would not be allowed in the tunnel. Ballard Oil, for instance, would have to take the waterfront or zoom briskly out Mercer toward I-5.)

But cost overruns is where I started this, and it's where I'll leave it.

Today King County Council Executive Dow Constantine issued a declaration of emergency on the Brightwater sewage treatment project. The declaration allows the County to swap out a non-performing contractor with one that's been able to get things done on time. The plant was originally supposed to open this year, but King County staff were concerned that it'd be more like December 2013 if they didn't make a switch.

Says the press release: "King County project managers do not yet know the extent of the costs associated with the delays and repairs, or who will ultimately bear responsibility for any additional costs. Both issues will be subject to negotiation with the companies involved."

The Seattle Times predicts the Brightwater overruns may end up in court: 

As the cost of the delay becomes known, a determination will have to be made about who'll bear what portion of that expense, with the county, contractor and machine manufacturer each having a large stake in the outcome.

Among the questions that could wind up in court: Was the contractor given sufficient information about the conditions? Were the machines properly operated? Were the machines themselves flawed in some way?

Does anyone remember what they were saying about cost overruns when Brightwater began? Did the engineers call out the possibility of two boring machines failing while deep underground and taking months and millions of dollars just for repair? Or did the statement read something like this?