Valley Street money

(Editor's Note: This letter was written to members of the Seattle City Council with a copy to this newspaper.

Honorable Council members,

I am writing to urge you to remove the provision of Council Bill 116161 that approves an initial payment of $25 million to purchase property and begin work on the proposed $200 million Mercer/Valley Street plan.

This project wasn't worth the cost when it was estimated at $90 million, let alone now that it has doubled to over $200 million. As you have long been advised by your own policy staff, these changes would do precious little to improve traffic in the westbound direction, and would actually increase the number of congested intersections and eastbound travel times. This scheme will do little or nothing to alleviate the impact of construction on the Alaskan Way Viaduct, and will more likely significantly worsen it.

Moreover, the figures in all of the traffic/environmental analysis that has been done to date were based on an additional $200 million to $300 million proposal to lower Aurora Avenue as part of the Alaskan Way Viaduct project, and the Mercer Street traffic studies and Alaskan Way Viaduct Environmental Impact Statements both acknowledge that these dismal travel times would significantly worsen as a result of the Mercer/Valley proposal if that part of the plan is not implemented. I seem to recall that the head of Seattle Department of Transportation was asked a question along these lines, and couldn't even provide a clear answer where traffic was going to go once it hit Dexter Street under this new (but still very expensive) half-plan. This would be funny if it weren't so appalling.

At a time when there is still no funding for the long-overdue Magnolia Bridge project, when the essential Spokane Street Viaduct project will require significant funding from other jurisdictions, and when the Lander Street Overpass has been deferred, it is absolutely incredible that the Council would even consider beginning the Mercer/Valley Street project. This is doubly the case given that the initial $25 million outlay - ironically enough for property that was sold to Paul Allen after the City had a long internal and external policy discussion and had decided to live with the Mercer Corridor largely as is - will commit the City to the full cost of the project if all of the other hoped-for sources of funding don't come through. And even if the state, port, and federal funding does come through, it will literally be at the expense of other more worthy and necessary projects.

The funding plan (if you can call it that) attached to Council Bill 116161 states that a total of over $50 million will come from a "Transportation Funding Package" starting in 2009. Where are these funds going to come from? The "Bridging the Gap Levy," or some other future levy that may or may not pass? Is the Council willing to commit to the misdirection of $20 million in City Light funds? If so, why not include this City of Seattle cost (and the other smaller ones contained in the project budget) in the public discussion and vote now, if you indeed intend to use this initial expenditure to commit a future Council to these costs. There is also the fact that this risky financing scheme relies on over $50 million in public money that has yet to be committed, and $36.5 million in "private partnerships" that may or may not materialize. And all of this is before cost overruns.

There is also the issue of the use of "Bridging the Gap" levy funds. According to a City Council press release written on Nov. 8, 2006, "Around 10 percent of funding will be used for system enhancements, including Spokane Street viaduct, Lander Street overpass, Mercer corridor, and King Street Station." The levy and the parking and employee hours taxes are supposed to raise about $540 million over nine years, so that would lead one to believe that there is $54 million available for all of those projects. Is it the intent of the Council to use all of these funds for the Mercer/Valley scheme and to deny Bridging the Gap and parking/hours tax funds to the other projects listed (which were probably the reason at least some voters supported the levy) or other eligible projects that may be of more utility?

It would be the height of fiscal irresponsibility to proceed forward with property acquisition with so few funds in hand even if this project had sufficient merit to justify its rapidly-escalating cost, but it is simply incredible that the Council would consider doing so given the limited benefit to the traveling public and opportunity cost to other more necessary projects.

Please strip the Mercer/Valley project out of Council Bill 116161 and use the limited public funds we have available to us as a City for projects that actually enhance mobility and implement essential life safety improvements on Seattle's aging infrastructure.

Matt Fox

Seattle