SeattleDesign: "Viaduct?" --- Do the math

On Monday, May 26, 2003, at 11:54 AM, DFP wrote:

"I would say that replacing the viaduct with a tunnel is certainly worthwhile, but whether it's worth the cost depends on what the cost is. Surely at some price it's what we should do. Equally as surely at another price it's not what we should do."

I agree entirely with DFP. It is ultimately a matter of cost. (Though
even if the Feds picked up 100% of cost, that is not "free" either ---
we spend political capital to get it.)

At any rate, the problem is that "the numbers" have shifted so much and
the political agenda so clear that I would be suspicious of any numbers
at this point.

"The numbers" are simply too amazing to be taken seriously as a tool
for decision-making.

For example, the cost of rebuilding just the 8000 ' seawall (supposedly
and conveniently now falling apart) is pegged at more than $1 billion
by Councilmember Conlin in the Seattle Times on 2/7/03. (I think
I've also read $1.25 billion in a news report by Mike Lindblom -- but
hey! what's $250 million among friends?)

(As an aside, go take a look, for example, at the seawall north of Pier
62/63 and you may be puzzled as to wherein lies the problem. More about
that in another post.)

At any rate, take the lower number and do the math. That is $125,000
per running foot. Go look at the seawall and imagine rebuilding it. To
put it into simple terms, the notion that, for example, a 10 foot
section of seawall should cost $1.25 million is an astonishing one.
Even with today's prices for Public Works, government should be able to
do a lot of construction for $1.25 million. Surely, the "seawall" must
include a whole lot of other things?

I just don't get it. There is something very odd about the numbers
being bandied about, which will make creating public trust very
difficult to achieve.