1. Reichert and I are all in support of spending $3.7 Billion on the tunnel as it will create 175,750 jobs in Seattle.

Posted by: John McDonald on September 2, 2006 01:35 PM

2. Won't the above ground replacement create jobs too?

Posted by: sgmmac on September 2, 2006 02:08 PM

3. Mr. McDonald's post is wrong in a number of ways.

First, any rookie economist will tell you that creating a job by extorting money from the populace, filtering it through any number of government agencies (where they skim off their percentage for handling it) and turning it into a paycheck is the absolute worst way to do it. You also have to factor the jobs that will be lost or not created at all because of higher taxes to pay for this monster.

After it's all said and done, I wouldn't be surprised if for every dollar turned into a paycheck it costs half of it to get to the worker. If the government is such a good jobs creator, why doesn't everybody work for the government? Because they are a net loser, they take (at the business end of a gun) more than they give.

Sgmmac has it right. Anything we do will create jobs. I also doubt the 175,750 new jobs figure. Most of these jobs already exist anyway I'd guess. I just don't see 175,750 unemployed people all of a sudden having them. How many "new" jobs did the Tacoma narrows bridge "create". 50 maybe? 100? I'd sure like to know. Where do these "new" jobs go when the project is over?

Also, you'll have to factor in jobs lost because the tunnel will handle significantly less traffic. They have admitted that already. More congestion means less business growth and less jobs. Thanx Mayor

Posted by: G Jiggy on September 2, 2006 03:28 PM

4. Much Like the "Bleak House" story of old England, Uncle Greg wants to spend our inheritance and place his name on it! ...lets see he also wants another $1Billion for street maintenance...

Puget Sound Regional Government(PSRG) Capital Budget-The last PSRG numbers I saw was $120 Billion yes you heard it right! BILLION...
all in the name of Growth Management instead of creating incentives to develop busines in Aberdeen, Moses Lake (power 2 cents per MKWH vs 13Cents in CA) Spokane, Yakima, Centrallia...
all have infrastructure in place that would need maybe 10 billion in incentives...

Development Impact Fees - Where are the growth impact fees in WA for the following
1.education M& O $10K per Yr (40% State Budget)
2. Education Capital Budget $40K
3. Water District M& O
4. Water District Cap Budget
5. Drainage District M & O
6 Drainage District Cap budget
7 DOT M & O budget
8 DOT Cap Budget
9 Criminal Justice System M & O (70% Co Budget)
10 Criminal Justice Cap Budget
11 Social Services M & O budget
12 Social Services Cap budget
13 Health Care for Poor, elders handicapped M & O budget
14 Health Care Cap budget - Harborview

the list goes on and on and the development community contines with a 34% Net Profit Margin
in this state according to Yahoo Finance 2006 report..
The only higher return on investment is software, Hospital building projects, Insurance

We just need to wait for the next big earth quake in Seattle and we will be just like New Orleans waiting for GWB to come to the rescue thru FEMA...
Me I am stocking up on Basics !

Wages - for CEO has gone up 451 times since 1970
look at CEO pay in Seattle Times Website
Working Poor min wage has gone from inflation adjusted dollars of 1970= $7.50 per hour to 2006 inflation adjusted dollars of $5.20 cents...

lets get our priorities of spend in balance...

seattle guy

Posted by: Bleak House on September 2, 2006 03:42 PM

5.
Those tit-soft construction cost estimates don't include the financing costs. They'd issue bonds with 25 year terms, pay interest only for the first five years, and end up where the taxpayers would be on the hook for thirty years or so for an amount that is triple whatever the actual construction costs turn out to be. That is a hallmark of a Greg Nickels transportation plan.

Also, what happened in Boston would happen here. The politicians nominally in charge would abdicate responsibility to Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff. This is what Sound Transit has done with the light rail project, and it would be what happens with a SR 99 tunnel. B/PB is paying to advocate for Nickels' plan because it will be a cash cow.

In Boston one of these megaprojects spun wildly out of control with Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff doing the engineering. This group wants to do here what it did on the Big Dig. As the Boston Globe reported: "Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff managers discussed the vagaries of funding for the Big Dig and the pressure to minimize its cost, prompting one manager to question whether it was wise to stay on the job. ``Is there a strategy to back ourselves out of this job? Or are we just going to continue to suck on the cow as long as it lives?" the unidentified manager asked, according to the transcript.

``You suck on the cow as long as it's alive," another manager replied."
http://www.boston.com/news/traffic/bigdig/articles/2006/08/22/prober_urges_big_dig_lawsuit/

And this particular group that Sound Transit is paying millions to for light rail engineering oversight was criminal in how it allowed shoddy engineering to take place, resulting in deaths of people using the facilities it was overseeing:

"The decision not to re test the epoxy bolts is one of several critical choices over a 14-year period in which Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff -- a joint venture of engineering and construction management firms that the state picked to supervise the $14.6 billion Big Dig -- played a lead role in reducing the tunnel ceiling's safety margin. An investigation by the Boston Globe found that Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff discouraged a proposal from designers to suspend the tunnel ceiling from a different kind of bolt they believed would be more reliable than epoxy. The Big Dig managers also turned down a pitch from the company that built the tunnel, Modern Continental Construction Co., to use lighter ceiling materials than concrete."

http://www.boston.com/news/traffic/bigdig/articles/2006/08/20/big_dig_officials_chose_not_to_retest/

Posted by: tunnel of love on September 2, 2006 04:02 PM

6. John McDonald: " Reichert and I are all in support of spending $3.7 Billion on the tunnel as it will create 175,750 jobs in Seattle."

You have 24 hours to document that Reichert supports the tunnel, otherwise I'm banning you from the site. Express your opinions all you want, but I have no use for people who spam the comments with nonsense.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on September 2, 2006 04:19 PM

7. Do the math! $3.7 billion divided by 175,750 jobs yields $21,052 per head without anything going for materials. $21,062 divided by 2080 work-hours/year yields $10.12/hour. How many construction workers do you know that will work for substantially less once materials are deducted? This smells!

Posted by: Fed Up on September 2, 2006 04:47 PM

8. Fed Up: The 175,750 jobs figure is complete Bullsh*t. Think it though. Try and picture 150,000 (remainder possibly off site) souls working on the waterfront. That' the size of a small town. It's complete fabricated B.S. out of whole cloth. This monster is full of B.S., that the boys at Brightwater are slack jawed with incredulous envy.

Posted by: G Jiggy on September 2, 2006 05:21 PM

9. Opps: "That'" = "That's" or "That is". Your pick.

Posted by: G Jiggy on September 2, 2006 05:23 PM

10. How will Mayor Nickels's tunnel share space with the existing railroad tunnel that runs under much of downtown Seattle?

Posted by: Marilyn on September 2, 2006 05:29 PM

11. Regardng the meaning of "80% confidence estimate". If you talk to a statistician, he will tell you that the meaning of an "X% confidence internal" is precisely that the true value will lie within the given interval X% of the time. It doesn't matter whether you are measuring the mass of the proton, the life-span of a cancer patient, or the cost of a transportation mega-project; that's simply the meaning of a confidence interval. So, if they are using the terminology correctly, 20% of their projects should exceed their 80% confidence cost celings.

Of course, the report may be mis-using statistical terminology. I don't know enough about their methodology to speak to that question.

Posted by: David Wright on September 2, 2006 05:34 PM

12. I have long advocated for: Nothing Gets On The Ballot untill the advocates have purchased a performance bond guaranteeing the project's completion at a cost within 10% of what they estimate it's cost. If their estimate is actually honest the bonding will be negligable if they are just pulling numbers out of their a$$ that they think will "sell" the public on the project they may not be able to secure bonding. Furthermore the public would vote on what constitutes performance, since a 14 mile Light Rail completed in 20 years is substantially equivilent to a 21 mile light rail completed in ten to the State Supreme Court I don't think that the courts are competent to decide these matters any longer.

Posted by: JDH on September 2, 2006 07:58 PM

13. Mayor Nickelbag has his heart set on the tunnel and no amount of common sense, logic, or lack of funds is going to deter him from pursuing this option. After what happened in Boston, I am amazed any one is still in favor of this ridiculous idea. The tunnel does not make sense in this geographic area. A bridge or replacement viaduct would be better alternatives. And before one cent goes toward replacing the current viaduct, the city needs to show it is serious about how it spends its money on necessary items instead of politically correct artsy fartsy programs.

I really hope that for once the Seattle voters are smart enough to turn down this tax package considering every other grand transit scheme voted in has been a colossal waste of time and money. Not to mention results far less than what the voters expected.

I am so weary of this "do as I say, not as I do" mantra of the greenie weenie left. First up, make all government employees who work day shift downtown take public transportation. This includes the elected officials. Next, have all those in favor of silly overpriced transit schemes give up their cars. This can be done by matching license registration with residence addresses. Then after these morons practice what they preach for a minimum of one year I might consider listening to what they have to say.

Posted by: Burdabee on September 2, 2006 08:20 PM

14. The best option is retrofit the 99 viaduct. The money saved goes to the I520 bridge rebuild. No need for RTID. No new Sound Transit taxes. We'd have the money the expert review panel says we'd need. Just do it.

Posted by: just sayin' on September 2, 2006 08:38 PM

15. Wasn't the last massive 14 cent gas tax suppose to fund the the 520 fix, viaduct and many many other promised improvements.

I've bee "Watching my 14 cents work" but where the hell is it working.......??????

It is only working a hole in all of our pocket books. There is now no money for 520, the viaduct is billions short, and nothing else has been fixed using their "Watch our 14 cents a gallon work.

I still am in traffic up to my ass every day, and no relief is in sight.

And Now John Carlson (turncoat) and Gary Locke (never seen enough tax hikes) are ready to plop another 16 billion load of taxes on us all.

Not to mention Sim's sales tax hike

Not to mention the Mayor of seattle's 1.6 Billion dollar road fix that never ends

Not to mention all the fee hikes and BS this legislature has ploped on us

Not to mention double digit property tax hikes on all of us

Not to mention Gregoire's 17% increase in spending and 1700 new state employees..

Have I forgot anything from these leeches

As the lady used to say "WHERE's The BEEF"

Posted by: gschroe on September 2, 2006 08:43 PM

16. You are all approaching this wrong...I have no problem with a tunnel...IF..There is a signed sealed agreement that the City of Seattle is responsible for all costs over 4 billion...Not one more dime from the county, State or feds....take a year and hire a thousand lawyers if need be to seal that deal in stone. I think you will find if you offer that deal to Seattle they will not take it...They want the state to sign on to their unrealistic estimates and then get the state so far in they have to ride it out.

Posted by: Sierradog on September 2, 2006 11:30 PM

17. Hi Stefan,

You completely missed my point. Reichert has consistant bragged about his ability to get transportation money as he did in March '05, July '05, Nov '05, June'06 including the massively pork bloated $283B Transportation Bill and now $200+M for the viaduct. He also makes the idiotic claim that each $1B in transportation spending equals 47,500 jobs (see link below) which was my main point.

http://www.house.gov/reichert/press.05/7.29.05.trans.shtml

Therefore, it would be completely normal and natural for a pork voting congressman who likes to run up the deficit and use socialist arguments like government spending equals new jobs, makes friendly with the mayor pushing the idea, would support the tunnel - and it is very pathetic and laughable of Big Gov Republicans to suddenly get serious about wasteful transportation spending.

Finally, Reichert arranging "private" meetings for the chief supporter of the tunnel (Nickels) with the chief funder (Young) ... seems pretty supportive of the tunnel to me. Did Dave arrange any for opponents of the tunnel. I struggle to see an opponent of an issue arranging private meetings for their opposition.

Posted by: John McDonald on September 2, 2006 11:33 PM

18. I find it interesting. That all these mega projects have less capacity than the current system in place. Who in their right mind thinks that tax payers will buy off on billions of dollars for construction that will make the traffic worse. I thought we were trying to improve the infrastructure. Well who knows who is buying off whom for this deal. There has to be a pay off for the politicians. Has anyone checked the Mayor's Freezer?
No capacity can be added to I-5 unless we tear down the conference center. So how does the infrastructure support more people. IT doesnt those in charge do not look at improving the infrastructure. Only spending mega bucks and then 5 years later demand more mega bucks. The eternal cycle of we need more money to improve the infrastructure. Spread out the pain over a few decades so that the taxpayers do not see that their pockets are being picked.
But then maybe that is the idea Destroy our highway system so business leave. If you can not move goods you go out of business or they will go somewhere where they can do business. By getting rid of jobs you make it look like you are fixing transportation system. Chase those businesses away and then you can demand more money from the people via Income Tax because they dont have enough money to pay for all those special interest projects and social programs.
I just wish I could read these politician minds to figure out what they are thinking. I love seeing all these lies they repeat over and over again until people believe them. An the Millionaire Liberals will provide funding to get it to pass. Cause and effect are going to ignored and the will of liberal politicians will overcome common sense. History will have some interesting stories to tell about this decade.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on September 3, 2006 12:36 AM

19. "confidence index?" ok--i seem to remember bell-shaped curves; eureka! we RAISE the height of the darn thing to bypass downtown like a roller coaster bell-shaped structure--whee! a thrill AND top rush hour speeds of 80 mph for 10 seconds;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on September 3, 2006 02:18 AM

20. Normally in public works, an "80% cost estimate" is made based on a set of construction plans for the tunnel which are presumably 80% complete.

If there is such a set of plans and specification developed to 80% of completion, it would run to hundreds of plan sheets and thousands of pages of specifications. I don't recall anyone referring to such a thing - has our overfed Mayor actually hired and paid an engineer to put in the thousands of manhours (oh, OK, sentient hominid bipedal-hours) necessary to develop the studies of existing soil conditions, locations of underground utilities etc and actually do 80% of the design work?

Engineering costs might be 7% of the total construction costs - that is, an "80% set" of plans would be billed at 80% x 7% x $4 billion, or $224,000,000. Has anyone seen a budget line item, or City checks written for, that sort of money?

Until there are actual plans for the structures to be built, the idea of an "80% confidence" cost estimate is more likely the product of a confidence man, rather than a construction estimator.

Posted by: Hank Bradley on September 3, 2006 07:34 AM

21. So sniveling little liberal~john feeeeeeeeels that he can make whatever bogus claim he wants with impunity. I'm glad that Stefan has (finally) called you on it.

You're a liar and a hack and a phony liberal~john and I hope (at long last) you're also gone. Go shill for the Dhimmicrats somewhere else...

Posted by: alphabet soup on September 3, 2006 08:01 AM

22. Hank, right on the money; all we need do is look at the brother-sister agencies like WA DOT or ferries to see the attitudes here about trans. projects--YEARS of poor audit findings and waste and NOTHING done, nobody fired or jailed for malfeasance; apathy; ripoffs; and with the 'prevailing wage' every budget gets eaten faster than a bum's bologna sandwich;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on September 3, 2006 08:27 AM

23. The sad thing is, alphabet, is that John McDonald calls himself a Republican. He's just like Doug Parris and all the rest of the hate-filled DNC moles that disrupt party functions and in their own words want to tear down the Republican party and rebuild it in their own (losing) image. John, why don't you go join the Heritage Party and leave us alone.

Posted by: Full Contact Politics on September 3, 2006 08:49 AM

24. I think it's time to say good by to Mr. McDonald.

Buddy you got caught with another lie and your now your trying wessle words to fix what you said.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 3, 2006 09:48 AM

25. Liberals always find ways to blow our money on all sorts or meaningless pork projects are you sure we cant put these idiots in the TIME TUNNEL and send them aboard the TITANIC

Posted by: BIRDZILLA on September 3, 2006 11:30 AM

26. The problem is that the tunnel is only one solution--have the other solutions been shot down already?
For example--confiscate all existing waterfront property (easy to justify since private ownership is eeeevviiiilll, right?), build a nice ground level freeway, and then put buildings on top of that. Thus, some people get their tunnel, and the ugly sight of cars is covered up at last, and other people get to keep their waterfront condos and offices. That might even be cheaper than a tunnel through the mud!
It appears to me that the tunnel dream is an attempt by the powers-that-be in King County to prove to the rest of the world that Seattle is a progressive city of the future. Newsflash--a tunnel is NOT needed to prove to the Joneses (and the Bostons, Londons, New Yorks, Parises, etc.) that your city is not a lame back-water hick town.

Posted by: pseudotsuga on September 3, 2006 03:43 PM

27. 15 minutes and counting for Liberal John to be gone!

Posted by: Huh? on September 3, 2006 04:00 PM

28. John, you should be embarrased of yourself to post such a lie.

You are entitled to your opinion, for or against an issue, but you cross the line when you create a phantom position to apply to someone else so that you can attack them for it.

What they did in the past you can be critical of, but you can never claim that because of that past action they will 100% act a certian way on a different issue.

This isn't an issue of if your opinion might end up being right or wrong, but on of integrity, and you have zero because of the tactics you use.

Posted by: Lie Detector on September 3, 2006 05:08 PM

29. "Reichert and I are all in support of spending $3.7 Billion on the tunnel as it will create 175,750 jobs in Seattle".

Since when do you speak for Dave Reichert ? I seriously doubt if you will be able to substantiate the above statement. It seems like John has taken all threads off-topic. Back to the topic, Mr. Nickels has shown his strong narcissistic tendencies with such a ridiculous proclaimation. It seems to be all about him and have nothing to do with his constituents who would be saddled with funding it. Thank God, I don't live in the para-Communist enclave, known as Seattle. Many comrades who reside who are proud to be socialists would not mind contributing in that fools paradise...

Posted by: KS on September 3, 2006 05:28 PM

30. "Reichert and I are all in support of spending $3.7 Billion on the tunnel as it will create 175,750 jobs in Seattle".

Since when do you speak for Dave Reichert ? I seriously doubt if you will be able to substantiate the above statement. It seems like John has taken all threads off-topic. Back to the topic, Mr. Nickels has shown his strong narcissistic tendencies with such a ridiculous proclaimation. It seems to be all about him and have nothing to do with his constituents who would be saddled with funding it. Thank God, I don't live in the para-Communist enclave, known as Seattle. Many comrades who reside who are proud to be socialists would not mind contributing in that fools paradise...

Posted by: KS on September 3, 2006 05:28 PM

31. "I believe people want a waterfront that reflects Seattle's values. And that is why the tunnel is the right choice. It is time to tear down that dangerous wall that separates our city."

I believe it is time to tear down the thought that our poctetbooks are endless pits that can be robbed by each and every whim each of the democrats have in this state.

It is always the most expensive option that gets picked, Always!

The projects are always over budget, Always!

That's what I believe Mayor Billions!

Posted by: GS on September 3, 2006 11:31 PM

32. John McDonald does not exist. Neither does Steve, or Sue, or Jane. There's a lot of fictious characters eminating from leftists who like to hijack comments at this site.

The better question for "John McDonald" is to give "him" one hour to prove he's not just a fake.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 4, 2006 05:40 AM

33. well said, GS--it's the "Seattle values" part of the picture that has to change; stop pandering to bums and illegals; stop endlessly debating everything and DO something; break eggs; step on toes, but darn it, DO someting; get a police chief who remembers what a nightstick is for--skulls--not carving mini-totem poles for community diversity relations;

If it's going to survive, Seattle needs to get a little coal smudge on its face occasionally like a Philly or Chicago. Its liberal, pasty-white face needs a black eye now & then. Soft does not work anymore in this day & age of terror and high taxes.

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on September 4, 2006 06:07 AM

34. I some time ago looked at a flier Dave Reichert sent to me I don't recall him being listing the
downtown tunnel replacement on it anywhere!! Let's get our facts strait John shall we?!

Posted by: Laurie on September 4, 2006 09:05 AM

35. yes, I'm real and the main point of #1 post was the number of Jobs Reichert says is created by Transportation spending which is 48K per $1B, and 47.5K per $1B in another press release. You guys fell for it and a bashed the jobs figure your guy Reichert uses to smittereens LOL :-) very well done. Just like you rip other quotes I've put in my writing like Ann Coulter (which someone finally caught after the comment was bashed repeatedly). But to satisfy your need to be right and not follow your situational ethics, I have no idea what Reichert believes regarding the tunnel other than arranging meetings for the main supporter of it. Strange how you lemmings work.

Carry on with your Sudden Financial Conservative Syndrome.

Posted by: John McDonald on September 4, 2006 11:26 AM

36. McDonald is mixed up again - Reichert won't influence the narcissistic mayor of Seattle as to how they want to fix the viaduct. He is just blowing smoke again.

Here's a new one - John; if you want to bash Bush - check out the North American Union and Bush's role here and bash away. I am already on that bandwagon and it is real. Compare this issue, which is a minnow (if you don't live in Seattle), to that one which is a killer whale surrounded by sting rays !

Posted by: KS on September 4, 2006 11:42 AM

37. At least we have a representative and not a knee-pad liberal sycophant like Burner which insane Liberal John supports.

I don't believe John has made his case, he admits he has "no idea what Riechert believes regarding the tunnel." Therefore, in keeping with his word, I assume Stefan will remove Liberal Insane John from the site.

John can always spew over at HA or Postmans blog, they don't have any standards of truth or honesty over there.

Posted by: Huh? on September 4, 2006 12:37 PM

38. Unfortunately Huh?, liberal~john has made his case. Not the case of substantiating the claims he has offered - he cannot because he is lying (when has he not lied?)

No, the case that he has made is one that reinforces his impunity to lie, distort, disparage, and demean. Pity - he needs a good swift kick in the nutz. Instead he is allowed to spew his crap.

Oh well, on to other things...

Posted by: alphabet soup on September 4, 2006 04:56 PM

39. So you're real John MacDonad? Prove it. If you can't prove your identity, that's why you should be banned from this blog.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 4, 2006 09:24 PM

40. So you're real John MacDonald? Prove it. If you can't prove your identity, that's why you should be banned from this blog.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 4, 2006 09:24 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?