The Tunnel is NOT funded by state gas tax money. The State (though gas tax money) is putting $2.8 billion toward 99. That is enough money to FULLY FUND the surface transit option, including transit only lanes on most streets in downtown Seattle and the first ave streetcar, most importantly, the absolutely necessary seawall replacement, all PAID FOR.

That same $2.8 billion covers only the cost of tunnel and thus leaves the city on the hook for $900 billion to fund the transit, surface street, and absolutely necessary seawall replacements. That $900 million in ADDITIONAL city money comes from the general fund or from NEW taxes. That $900 million could be spent on ANYTHING, including schools.

McGinn is completely correct: this tunnel IS taking money away from other essential services, about $900 million away.

Unfortunately, if even the hard-core policy wonks who read this blog have come to believe the LIE that the tunnel money is somehow exclusively highway money and thus could not really be spent elsewhere, then there is, sadly, little hope for McGinn’s principled campaign.

Sorry about all the capitals, it’s 2 a.m. and I’m very tired. BUT NOT AS TIRED AS I AM OF PEOPLE MISUNDERSTANDING BUDGETARY FUNGIBLITY! :-)

With all due respect, I feel this statement is naive. While this may be something that we might all like, you cannot ignore the reality that we are part of a very diverse state. Even a lot of Democrats in the legislature wouldn’t support what you’re proposing.

“Does he mean he would cut the tax on gasoline so the $2 billion for the tunnel wouldn’t be collected?” Heck no, raise it and/or change it to a percentage based tax, like most other taxes. If it is burning a hole in the state’s pocket, don’t spend it on another highway just for the sake of getting rid of it. Spend it on transit if taxes collected on gas must stay in the transportation world.

Badge him up.

So, let’s ask if there is a serious response to “Where would you cut the budget”. Well, lo and behold, it turns out there is- bills in the state House and Senate to make possession of small amounts of marijuana a misdemeanor for which a simple citation is issued.

There’s a simple answer that, by all indications, has the support of 60% or more of the public and would produce immediate budget savings at the city, county, and state level that mayors, county executives, and the governor could spend on anything they wanted to. I would have been impressed if McGinn had used his teachable moment to kick that can a little ways down the road.

In fact, I find the Great City website to be impressive and interesting. I imagine I would cheer enthusiastically at 99% of what Mr. McGinn might say. But when it comes to assertions that the state has $2 billion just lying around that could be used for whatever we want, not so much. I’ve heard enough of that kind of talk already.