Is it just me, or does it seem just a little bit weird that the local press continues to refer to the planned 520 project as a “$4.4 billion bridge?”
While the the more savvy writers have recognized that in 2007 $400 million had been cut from the price tag due to “Design Change & Early Construction of Pontoons,” no one seems to be pondering what the Economist calls “staggering price increases for commodities” .
Shouldn’t reporters be asking questions about a cost estimate that hasn’t changed since October 2006? Didn’t Proposition 1 unexpectedly fail? Didn’t that impose a delay (which raises costs?)
Didn’t the cost of steel/rebar just spike?
Now I understand that in 2006, the DOT was estimating future costs, and they assumed a modicum of inflation and material cost increases in the estimate for a future 520, but c’mon — you can’t tell me that they assumed “staggering” price increases like these.
If the number-crunchers (or should I say the Excel “goal seek” mechanics) at the DOT knew that oil prices were going to double to 116 dollars a barrel and cause asphalt prices to soar, they could have funded a new bridge entirely by creating a hedge fund. The returns would have been phenomenal.
Other states seem to be recognizing that prices have surged and have re-evaluated the road projects in the pipeline.
Eager to see if anyone but me has asked this question. Moderately rigorous searches of the blogosphere and major news sources have not revealed anyone yet…
| |
In an article in the Seattle Times, reporter Chris McGann quotes Dino Rossi on congestion relief:
“Our system is broken, clearly,” Rossi said. “Congestion relief is nowhere on the radar. … Christine Gregoire started talking about congestion relief, but unfortunately, she’s also said that she wants to force 50 percent of us out of our cars by 2050. Everybody thinks ‘Well, you’re not talking about me because I have important things to do.’ Well no, she’s actually talking about you.
“We’re talking about two different visions,” Rossi said. “One of trying to force people out of their car or of freedom for you to choose how you’d like to move about the region.”
In an article by Larry Lange of the Seattle Post-Intellingencer, Rossi’s ideas on providing congestion relief on 405 & 520 are outlined:
“Besides resurrecting proposals for a Seattle tunnel and an eight-lane Evergreen Point Bridge, GOP gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi’s transportation plan contains another controversial idea: getting Sound Transit to build more car pool lanes with cash it might otherwise spend extending light rail to the Eastside.
This element, part of the plan Rossi unveiled this week, estimates that Sound Transit will collect enough unplanned tax revenue in the next 30 years in its Eastside district to produce $690 million for HOV projects on Interstate 405 and state Route 520.
Sound Transit’s extra cash would “be used for what it was intended — to finance transit-related infrastructure on the Eastside,” Rossi’s plan says. In an interview Friday, Rossi said Sound Transit has “many buses, so we should have a place for them.”
If BRT (bus rapid transit) lines on the eastside had dedicated lanes on 405 & 520 (funded by Rossi’s plan) that could then branch off to numerous routes north, south, east and west (not stuck on one light rail corridor), wouldn’t that serve eastside communities’ needs to go to work, home, school, errands, etc., better than a fixed guideway?
As near as I can tell, the plan will fully fund all of the state's major transportation projects without raising taxes.
It also presents a major shift on how taxes and core public services are treated. Typically, existing taxes are used to expand discretionary programs while the basic and core services deteriorate until a crisis forces the political will to raise taxes. We saw this type of crisis management with the Chehalis floods ...  |
|
| |