Report: Tunnel project keeps within budget, but that’s not the whole story
Apr 23, 2015, 8:54 AM | Updated: 12:18 pm
As Bertha is repaired, a new review of the Alaskan Way viaduct tunnel states that the project remains within budget, but there are other concerns to consider as the project moves forward. (AP)
(AP)
It will be within budget, but not on time, and some involved have to get along better.
That’s the message according to the latest review from the Expert Review Panel for the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program.
“Based on the information available to the (expert review panel) today, the (expert review panel) remains confident that the program can be completed and there does not appear to be a need for additional state or local funds above the amounts already contained in the $3.1 billion budget,” the review states in its introduction.
The review comes after a series of stalling problems that have blocked the tunnel project ever since it began, but the panel notes that such problems are not to be misunderstood as reasons to give up on construction.
“The (expert review panel) stresses that it is common for issues to arise in tunnel projects,” the review states. “The tunnel portion of the program continues to benefit from decisions and actions that were previously taken in anticipation of such issues.”
The panel does state that the original December 2015 deadline for the project will not be met. It further notes that no replacement deadline has been established, leaving the project’s end nowhere in sight. The end, however, can only be determined after repairs on Bertha, the tunnel boring machine, have been completed.
Crews repair broken cutter on Bertha
The review also points out that two of the project’s partners have to get along better if it is going to be completed in an efficient time frame and meet the budget. The project’s dispute resolution board hasn’t gotten the Washington State Department of Transportation and Seattle Tunnel Partners to see eye-to-eye on conflicts. The review states that each group is distracted by potential liabilities, rather than the project’s progress.
Mainly, both parties refuse to “acknowledge the decisions made in the process,” the review states. “The reluctance appears primarily related to disputed issues that may have legal context not conventionally considered by (the dispute resolution board).”
Also among the recommendations, the review states that the project needs research tolling as a future funding source for the tunnel. How much tolling and how it will be incorporated into the project is not known.
