Actually I don't remember there being a ballot measure for this.

BTW, this project would cost $157 Million per mile.

From the The News Tribune. Soaring costs threaten highway link Highway 167: Much has changed, tripling price from estimate 10 years ago

Rob Tucker; The News Tribune

The cost of the state Highway 167 freeway extension from Puyallup to the Port of Tacoma has more than tripled, which could delay the project.

John Wynands, the project engineer, said more detailed examinations of design and environmental impacts bumped the project estimate from $256 million to roughly $950 million, an increase of 271 percent.

It's up to the Legislature to decide whether to fund the project.

State Sen. Jim Kastama (D-Puyallup), who has pushed for the project at the lower cost figure, said Monday he would investigate the increases. The first phase of construction was scheduled for 2003-04, with completion in 2012-15. State planning of the project began more than 30 years ago.

"It seems to be outrageous," Kastama said. "It puts it out of (funding) reach and makes it unrealistic to complete." He said he believes the people in his district want the project completed.

Local supporters of the project were just as frustrated.

"Nobody will partner up on this when it's so far out of whack," said Pam Marzano, executive director of the Fife Chamber of Commerce. "We've got to find some way to fund transportation projects. It took me an hour to get to Kent this morning."

The highway, if completed, offers Seattle-Tacoma commuters and truckers an alternative to Interstate 5.

The Highway 167 freeway begins at Interstate 405 in Renton and passes through Kent, Auburn, Algona, Pacific, Sumner and Puyallup. The proposed extension would complete the final six miles of freeway from Puyallup through Fife and to a connection with state Highway 509, the Cross-Tideflats Freeway, near Alexander Avenue in Tacoma. For now, Highway 167 from Puyallup to Tacoma runs along River Road East.

Gary Demich, the regional highway administrator, said price boosters on the project included inflation in construction costs - roughly 5 percent, compounded annually since 1990 - as well as the cost of additional fill materials and higher bridge costs. He and Wynands listed the specific factors:

* The $256 million figure is 10 years old and was a rough planning estimate. Since 1990, DOT had no better figure until engineers three weeks ago completed more detailed studies and developed a more accurate estimate.

* The studies and drilling revealed that soils along the route are so saturated with water that four times the normal volume of road fill must be used.

* Wet soils also boosted the cost of bridge building. There are at least nine bridges - including spans over Freeman Road East, 20th Street East, 70th Avenue East, 54th Avenue East, Pacific Highway East and 12th Street East. Additional bridgework on elevated roadways will occur at the freeway interchanges, including North Meridian Street (Highway 161), Valley Avenue East, I-5 and 54th Avenue East.

* The original cost estimate included building four freeway lanes from Puyallup to I-5. Now, there will be six lanes, including two high-occupancy vehicle lanes. And the estimate now includes a connection with Highway 509 at the Port of Tacoma, a highway that wasn't built when planning began.

* Right of way costs have more than doubled because more land within the corridor has changed from farming to higher-value commercial uses.

* Tougher regulations also boosted costs. There are additional building requirements so highways can better withstand earthquakes. Drainage requirements are stricter to protect fish.

The factors add up. For instance, Wynands said, the proposed interchange at I-5 near 70th Avenue East in Fife will cost more than four times the original estimate, jumping from $30 million to $130 million.

"The next series of reality checks," Demich said, "Are we willing to pay for this as citizens?"

Some supporters of the project during its decades of ups and downs were surprised.

"That project should have been completed 30 years ago," said Lynn Wallace, executive director of the East Pierce County chamber of commerce.

Others weren't as surprised. Denise Logan, a businesswoman on the Highway 167 citizens advisory committee, said highway costs are going up rapidly. She said so many businesses are springing up in the North Meridian area of Puyallup where the freeway ends, the cost of buying right of way land has to go up.

"Something might get knocked down that has recently been built," she said.

The Port of Tacoma sees the freeway as a key truck freight link to I-405 and the rapidly growing warehouse districts in Kent, Auburn, Sumner and Fife, as well as another connection to the Port of Seattle.

For instance, more than 300,000 trucks annually pick up or drop off trans-Pacific and Alaskan freight at the Port of Tacoma. Port officials expect that truck traffic to double within 15 years.

Local cities, including Fife and Puyallup, see the freeway extension as a traffic congestion reducer and a safer route for commuters.

The new 167 corridor from Puyallup to the Port of Tacoma would take 61 acres of farm land and divide seven farm parcels. Farm land preservationists have objected, saying it will disrupt farming in the fertile Puyallup Valley. But some farmers approve of the freeway, saying it's not economical to farm in the area anymore.

During the past two years, state transportation officials allocated $2.8 million for engineering and right of way purchases along the freeway extension route. They have requested $25 million for the next two years, and $257 million for 2003-05. It's up to the Legislature to decide the actual funding levels, Demich said.

- - -

* Rob Tucker covers East Pierce County. Reach him at 253-597-8374 or rob.tucker@mail.tribnet.com.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), January 23, 2001

Answers

to Jim Cusick: You claim the project would cost $157 million per mile. A more apt description would be LESS than $30 million per LANE-MILE.

Perhaps they could cut the cost in half by making the roadway be 3 lanes, but the lanes could be reversible.

Personally, I believe a more sensible project would be to connect Hwy 18 to I-705 (and I-705 then quickly connects to I-5) via Hwy 509.

A Hwy 18 to I-705 project may be even more expensive, but would then facilitate badly needed modifications to I-5 between I-705 and Hwy 18.

I don't understand your posting. The issue of transportation is one of cost benefit analysis. The cost of a project is somewhat irrelevant, as long as the benefits far outweigh the cost.

I'm skeptical of the benefits of linking Hwy 167 to I-5. But, if there are economic dividends to the project, then it's not really costing me, the taxpayer, anything. Therefore, a "re-vote" is not needed.

As to who should resign. Well, that would be Governor "Grid" Locke, right? The costs exploded on his watch.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 24, 2001.

to Matt:

"You claim the project would cost $157 million per mile. A more apt description would be LESS than $30 million per LANE-MILE.Perhaps they could cut the cost in half by making the roadway be 3 lanes, but the lanes could be reversible. "

If they cut the number of lanes, the cost probably would go up per lane mile. A project like this would have to be at least 4 lanes to justify the amount of earthmoving, property takes, and environmental mitigation required.

Why is "Less than $30 million per LANE-MILE" a more apt description? It still describes the project. It all depends on how you want it to read.

If this were a transit project the headlines would have a different flavor. Of course, the news media is supported by the auto industry anyway.

"Personally, I believe a more sensible project would be to connect Hwy 18 to I-705 (and I-705 then quickly connects to I-5) via Hwy 509.

A Hwy 18 to I-705 project may be even more expensive, but would then facilitate badly needed modifications to I-5 between I-705 and Hwy 18.

I don't understand your posting. The issue of transportation is one of cost benefit analysis. The cost of a project is somewhat irrelevant, as long as the benefits far outweigh the cost. "

If the people in that area want to pay for it, fine. Don't use my taxes to do it though. The South Sound Sub-Area's gas and property taxes should take care of it. A cost benefit analysis would show that within the next 30 years those people that use the current route would be better off. After that, if those people in that area are experiencing congestion again, and another cost benefit analysis shows 2 more lanes will bring another round of 'benefits' for the next 30 years, then those people should build and pay for it, if that's what they'd like. Personally, I would like the opportunity to vote to decide if I wanted to build these things in the first place. As things stand now, no public vote happens with road projects.

"I'm skeptical of the benefits of linking Hwy 167 to I-5. But, if there are economic dividends to the project, then it's not really costing me, the taxpayer, anything. Therefore, a "re-vote" is not needed."

Who derives the economic benefits? Shouldn't the market decide? If the situation requires it, then companies and employees should live closer together. Why should I be taxed for other peoples lifestyle choices? If they want to live that far away from work, let them pay for the trip. Of course, if the road was a TOLL road, then those that benefit the most, would at least pay a portion of the cost. The toll wouldn't have to be too high. Maybe enough to pay off the bonds, and for ongoing maintenance.

"As to who should resign. Well, that would be Governor "Grid" Locke, right? The costs exploded on his watch. "

Who hired that guy anyway?

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), January 24, 2001.

cost may not matter with your money, but it does with mine..

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), January 24, 2001.

to Jim: You write: "Why is "Less than $30 million per LANE-MILE" a more apt description? It still describes the project. It all depends on how you want it to read...If this were a transit project the headlines would have a different flavor. Of course, the news media is supported by the auto industry anyway."

If this were a light rail project, the cost would be $130 million per rail-mile. My point is that you should be comparing rail-miles to lane-miles. I believe you were insinuating that since the road project cost $157 million per mile that this was no different from a rail project costing $157 million per mile. Comparing lane-miles to rail-miles will show there are differences, indeed!

You also write: "If the people in that area want to pay for it, fine. Don't use my taxes to do it though. The South Sound Sub-Area's gas and property taxes should take care of it."

Don't forgot the increased revenues the federal and state governments will experience as a result of additional improvements to the regional economy. As for not using your taxes, what are you talking about? Please explain what taxes of yours are going up as a result of the project, especially if the project results in economic dividends for ALL of society.

You also write: "Personally, I would like the opportunity to vote to decide if I wanted to build these things in the first place. As things stand now, no public vote happens with road projects."

I may be inclined to agree with you. For example, there could be a vote to "sell off" the road system to private companies in exchange for NO gasoline taxes, NO sales taxes on cars, NO fees on trucks and cars, LOWER federal income taxes etc. I have no objection to obtaining public input on which road projects should proceed. I think the public knows better than the "experts" as to what projects are great and which ones suck.

You then write: "Who derives the economic benefits? Shouldn't the market decide?"

I don't know what "market" you're talking about. I have no choice about moving my car from Point A to Point B. For all practical purposes, I must use the existing road network, which constitutes a monopoly. Free-market economics work best when people have choices. Again, if the government wants to sell of the roads in exchange for no taxes, then you may have a point. Is that what you're advocating?

You also write: "If the situation requires it, then companies and employees should live closer together. Why should I be taxed for other peoples lifestyle choices? If they want to live that far away from work, let them pay for the trip. Of course, if the road was a TOLL road, then those that benefit the most, would at least pay a portion of the cost. The toll wouldn't have to be too high. Maybe enough to pay off the bonds, and for ongoing maintenance."

I have no objection to that. I've already proposed (many times) converting the HOV system into a fee-for-use system, which accomplishes exactly what you're saying. I believe that many, many people would gladly pay a fee in exchange for an uncongested commute. However, I don't believe there is any enthusiasm to pay a fee for access to the existing, miserable commute. And, people would be even more willing to pay a toll, if there were no sales tax on the purchase of a used vehicle. Apparently, though, you have no objection to taxing people with long commutes. The word, hypocrite, comes to mind.

With respect to Governor Locke, you rhetorically ask: "Who hired that guy anyway?"

When Governor Locke was re-elected, people may not have been aware as they are now with respect to the mis-management of our transportation and energy infrastructure. In any case, the people responsible for "hiring that guy" are also the ones bearing the brunt of his mis-management. So, the answer remains the same, Governor "Grid" Locke should resign.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 25, 2001.

to Matt:

"If this were a light rail project, the cost would be $130 million per rail-mile. My point is that you should be comparing rail-miles to lane-miles. I believe you were insinuating that since the road project cost $157 million per mile that this was no different from a rail project costing $157 million per mile. Comparing lane-miles to rail-miles will show there are differences, indeed!"

However, when any new road construction requires more than at grade construction, and as much work as this project needs, it's not cost effective to build just 2 lanes.

I'd love to see a rail-mile by lane-mile comparison where no facility previously existed. The problem is, in a cost/benefit analysis, they both do just as poorly. Look at the study of "I-605". At a preliminary estimate of $1.5 billion dollars, the numbers just don't justify it. If a rail line is discussed for that same area, it's immediately discounted because it's a High Capacity System, and it's dollar benefit is so far out in the future. Both of those facilities would require development around key points to make them work. Senator Horn is a forward thinking road proponent, but it runs into the same issues as putting any other High Capacity System in place. A freeway is a High Capacity System.

"Don't forgot the increased revenues the federal and state governments will experience as a result of additional improvements to the regional economy. As for not using your taxes, what are you talking about? Please explain what taxes of yours are going up as a result of the project, especially if the project results in economic dividends for ALL of society."

Let me answer your question, first. Actually the issue with state taxes, and especially the gas tax, is that there is no "firewall" keeping what I pay in my area. Therefore I can't explain EXACTLY what taxes of mine will go towards this project. I have no idea, and I haven't the time to go through all the books of all the agencies/cities/counties/etc. At a cost of almost a billion dollars for this particular project, I'd like to be sure it doesn't drain funds from my sub-area.

Leading in to your other statements, how does driving increase revenue and boost the economy more than any other mode? In fact, it could be argued that the opposite is true. That people can be more productive if they don't have to operate a vehicle, and can use almost all of their transit time for productive uses. They still pay taxes on things they buy. Of course, big ticket items, such as cars, generate larger tax revenues, so I suppose the "government" doesn't have any incentive to consider options that have me drive less.

"I may be inclined to agree with you. For example, there could be a vote to "sell off" the road system to private companies in exchange for NO gasoline taxes, NO sales taxes on cars, NO fees on trucks and cars, LOWER federal income taxes etc. I have no objection to obtaining public input on which road projects should proceed. I think the public knows better than the "experts" as to what projects are great and which ones suck."

Let the market decide.

Of course the scary part is what is happening in California with deregulation of the power industry. Costs could go up as well as down.

If major highways were privately owned, you can be sure our commute habits would be much different.

It's amazing how much information is out there. The problem is finding and understanding it all. Also, subjectivity comes into play on a lot of these issues. Houses are cheaper by the freeway, if access were the key, they should be more expensive. The other subjective issue is how much road buildout is tolerable for those who live 'downstream'. Their taxes might be used locally but they are benefiting those who live farther away.

"I don't know what "market" you're talking about. I have no choice about moving my car from Point A to Point B. For all practical purposes, I must use the existing road network, which constitutes a monopoly. Free-market economics work best when people have choices. Again, if the government wants to sell of the roads in exchange for no taxes, then you may have a point. Is that what you're advocating?"

Other than the fact that, for all practical purposes, it's unworkable and highly unpopular, ... Yes.

However, I believe the current taxing/fee structure for transportation doesn't allow for accurate allocation of costs in relation to who they benefit. What guidelines are in place for Sound Transit should be in place for any other mode.

"I have no objection to that. I've already proposed (many times) converting the HOV system into a fee-for-use system, which accomplishes exactly what you're saying. I believe that many, many people would gladly pay a fee in exchange for an uncongested commute. However, I don't believe there is any enthusiasm to pay a fee for access to the existing, miserable commute. And, people would be even more willing to pay a toll, if there were no sales tax on the purchase of a used vehicle. Apparently, though, you have no objection to taxing people with long commutes. The word, hypocrite, comes to mind."

Actually, when I was younger, the house I could afford was far away. Although the cost of driving was actually higher, I was travelling on 'subsidized' roads, since there was no way that the people in my community could afford to have paved the highway to this point. Also, demand increases caused by me and people like me require those who lived close in to use their taxes for capicity increases. Now, since I still live in the same community, I'm downstream. So you are correct, from that point of view, I am a hypocrite.

The costs for these modes are relatively the same, actually more for roads in an urban area, the question is, if you live 'downstream', which transportation mode would you pick to have come through your neighborhood. For every complaint about light rail, I can give you 20 people who would object to any capacity improvements to the road system.

"When Governor Locke was re-elected, people may not have been aware as they are now with respect to the mis-management of our transportation and energy infrastructure. In any case, the people responsible for "hiring that guy" are also the ones bearing the brunt of his mis-management. So, the answer remains the same, Governor "Grid" Locke should resign."

The fools, they just re-elected him too!!! What were they thinking?

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), January 28, 2001.

to Jim: You write: "I'd love to see a rail-mile by lane-mile comparison where no facility previously existed. The problem is, in a cost/benefit analysis, they both do just as poorly. Look at the study of "I-605". At a preliminary estimate of $1.5 billion dollars, the numbers just don't justify it. If a rail line is discussed for that same area, it's immediately discounted because it's a High Capacity System, and it's dollar benefit is so far out in the future. Both of those facilities would require development around key points to make them work. Senator Horn is a forward thinking road proponent, but it runs into the same issues as putting any other High Capacity System in place. A freeway is a High Capacity System."

If a new interstate doesn't result in siginifcant economic benefits, then society probably shouldn't build it. It sounds like you're saying that a $1.5 billion dollar light rail project provides just as much economic benefits as similarly priced interstate. I don't buy it. The interstate will benefit ALL types of economic activity. Any service provided by light rail can be just as easily provided by buses. You have yet to provide a compelling argument for light rail. Your whole argument seems to be "do nothing".

You then write: "...Actually the issue with state taxes, and especially the gas tax, is that there is no "firewall" keeping what I pay in my area. Therefore I can't explain EXACTLY what taxes of mine will go towards this project. I have no idea, and I haven't the time to go through all the books of all the agencies/cities/counties/etc. At a cost of almost a billion dollars for this particular project, I'd like to be sure it doesn't drain funds from my sub-area."

Again, I have no objection to letting the voters decide what projects should move forward. The average citizen has a pretty good sense of what will work and what won't.

You then write: "Leading in to your other statements, how does driving increase revenue and boost the economy more than any other mode? In fact, it could be argued that the opposite is true. That people can be more productive if they don't have to operate a vehicle, and can use almost all of their transit time for productive uses. They still pay taxes on things they buy. Of course, big ticket items, such as cars, generate larger tax revenues, so I suppose the "government" doesn't have any incentive to consider options that have me drive less."

It's a matter of cost benefit analysis. If you can create transportation system, allowing me to travel from one point to any other point, in a timely manner, then I will be glad to consider it. The fact is that we already have a widespread road and highway. Therefore, incremental improvements to the already existing system can have huge benefits relative to the costs. As soon as someone invents a low-cost "air car", society will no longer have to waste its money on expanding the network of roads. Until then, any alternatives must be shown to be superior in terms of cost-benefit analysis. You have yet to show this with light rail.

You also write: "Let the market decide...Of course the scary part is what is happening in California with deregulation of the power industry. Costs could go up as well as down."

It is a misnomer to call what's happening in California "deregulation". True deregulation would've passed on the higher costs to the consumers, who then would've used less electricity, which would then result in excess supply and lower prices.

You also write: "If major highways were privately owned, you can be sure our commute habits would be much different."

Not necessarily. If privately owned highways meant no gasoline taxes, no sales taxes on used cars, etc., then people might accept the new status quo. The big losers would probably be buses and trucks, as the private owners would not want such vehicles on their roadways. This would result in higher prices for goods and commodities, which are shipped by truck. So, rather than changing how people commute, privately owned highways would change what and how much we buy.

You also write: "Houses are cheaper by the freeway, if access were the key, they should be more expensive."

Not true. Access is one factor. Noise is another. Where I live, in Gig Harbor, there are many "subdivisions" popping up precisely because of their proximity to the highway and the Narrows Bridge. But, the trade-off is a extra noise. In fact, when I commute home from work, because of my "access" to the freeway, I only encounter a single light, which I can still make a right turn after stopping. And, my one-way commute is 37 MILES!!! My commute also includes three stop signs, the last of which is a left turn. It was worth a pretty penny to me to live close to Hwy 16 and the Narrows Bridge.

You also write: "The other subjective issue is how much road buildout is tolerable for those who live 'downstream'. Their taxes might be used locally but they are benefiting those who live farther away."

I suppose local communities could convert their roadways into tollways, issuing reduced or free passes to those who paid the taxes. But, if, in the end, it results in reduced sales tax collections, then I hate to say I told you so.

In response to privatizing the highway system, you finally admit: "Other than the fact that, for all practical purposes, it's unworkable and highly unpopular, ... Yes."

It may not be so unpopular if it means NO GASOLINE TAX and NO SALES TAXES ON USED CARS.

You also write: "However, I believe the current taxing/fee structure for transportation doesn't allow for accurate allocation of costs in relation to who they benefit. What guidelines are in place for Sound Transit should be in place for any other mode."

I have no objection to the voters having a say in what road projects should proceed. And, I'd rather pay license tab fees in exchange for no gasoline tax, since I can deduct license tab fees from my federal income taxes.

You then write: "The costs for these modes are relatively the same, actually more for roads in an urban area, the question is, if you live 'downstream', which transportation mode would you pick to have come through your neighborhood. For every complaint about light rail, I can give you 20 people who would object to any capacity improvements to the road system."

That's fine. For those who object to capacity improvements to the road system, they should be denied access to basic services like fire, ambulance, police, etc. Similarly, for those who want to tear down the dams or oppose nuclear power, they should be the ones to bear any burdens of rolling blackouts. You can't have economic growth if the underlying infrastructure doesn't grow, as well. Those who oppose economic growth should be ignored, since they are OBVIOUSLY INSANE. People need good paying jobs. People want their offspring to have good paying jobs. The choices are: GROW OR DIE!!!

As for Governor Locke, you continue to miss the point and write: "The fools, they just re-elected him too!!! What were they thinking?"

Since being re-elected, the voters now learn that their electric rates will be going up at least 30%. They also learn about more lawsuits and/or payments as result of DSHS bungling. It's getting to the point where Gov. Locke couldn't get elected to clean up dog poop from the siedwalk!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 29, 2001.

"For those who object to capacity improvements to the road system, they should be denied access to basic services like fire, ambulance, police, etc."

Can I quote you on this? I mean, in public?

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), February 02, 2001.