Viaduct is out; tunnel is in

After years of debate, Seattle joined forces with the state and federal governments yesterday to say the best replacement for the aging Alaskan Way Viaduct is the most expensive option -- a six-lane tunnel.



	What the Seattle waterfront might look like without the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Source of images: state Transportation Department, city of Seattle.

Now more than $4 billion has to be found to pay for the project, which would dramatically alter the city's waterfront by removing what has become a Seattle icon.

"Today we are making history," Mayor Greg Nickels told a crowd of about 100 people made up mostly of state and local officials, including Seattle City Council members. "Not since the Denny Regrade have we had such an important land-use opportunity."

It is hoped that construction of the tunnel can begin in 2009, but the idea will face opposition from groups who favor other options, including tearing the viaduct down and not replacing it at all.

The tunnel project is estimated to take seven years to complete and would force traffic to be significantly rerouted during construction.

Yesterday in the ceremony across the street from the roaring traffic on the 1950s-vintage viaduct, city and state officials said the tunnel is the best way to:



Current view

Maintain capacity to handle north-south traffic in the state Route 99 corridor.

Keep side streets clear enough for trucks to move in and out of port docks.

Open up long-blocked views of the waterfront and transform the viaduct land into an open public space.



Possible view after viaduct torn down

The tunnel has been discussed as one of six alternatives for replacing the viaduct, which was damaged in the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. Yesterday marked the first time the city, the state Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration have stated in unison that they prefer the six-lane tunnel.

The state has studied replacing the double-deck viaduct for much of the past decade, but the effort accelerated after the earthquake cracked support piers and forced its temporary closure while the viaduct was shored up in the Pioneer Square area.

Part of the structure has sunk 4 inches since the quake, and state officials have voiced the fear that another major earthquake could close the viaduct again.

"The paramount challenge the viaduct presents is one of safety," said state Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, chairman of the House Transportation Committee.



	Current view

After the earthquake, the state initiated regular structural inspections and joined the city and federal government in an environmental-impact study that identified five basic replacement options, ranging from the six-lane tunnel with ramps to the stadium area, to complete removal of the viaduct and dispersal of the traffic to side streets. Costs ranged from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion.



	Possible view after viaduct torn down

The state also considered a proposal by the People's Waterfront Coalition that the viaduct be removed and not replaced with any new road, but the idea was rejected.

Nickels, at yesterday's gathering, said the city's central waterfront has become less industrial and more of a public gathering place, worthy of opening up with removal of the old structure.

"This region is not going to make the mistake of building another viaduct," he said.

Raising money for the tunnel project will be a major effort.

Murray and other Seattle-area legislators have said it is the state's responsibility to come up with the cost of a one-for-one replacement, but money for the higher tunnel cost will have to be found elsewhere.

Given other demands on the state's transportation system, getting the state to provide that difference "is not realistic," Murray said.

Lobbying efforts have begun to get federal money for part of the cost, but Congress and the Bush administration haven't yet agreed to an appropriation, said federal highway administrator Dan Mathis.

The city has lobbied for $1 billion from the federal government, though Mathis said it's not clear yet how much it might get.

City Councilman Richard Conlin, chairman of the council's Transportation Committee, said a local share could be raised through an additional gas tax or tolls. The cost of the project could go as high as $4.5 billion if it eventually includes the lowering of Aurora Avenue and reconnection of streets across it or improvements to arterials such as Mercer and Spokane streets.

Part of the money could come from a voter-approved Regional Transportation Improvement District package, although officials have not been able to agree on what other projects should be included in a package to be sent to voters.

Yesterday a few members of the carpenters and operating engineers unions, interested in the jobs the project would create, held up banners with their unions' insignias as the speeches were delivered. Just steps away a handful of tunnel opponents also showed up, holding up signs saying: "Rebuild Viaduct, No Tunnel."

And yesterday a Magnolia resident, Elizabeth Campbell, filed an initiative with the City Clerk's Office to prevent replacing the viaduct with a tunnel. If city officials approve the measure as to form it will become Initiative 84, and Campbell would have six months to gather the 17,229 valid signatures needed to put it on a city ballot.

"I like being up there (on the viaduct's top deck) and the view," Campbell said. "Who said transportation has to be torture? The viaduct makes me feel good when I'm driving it. What happens when a tunnel caves in?"

The sign-carrying attendees at the ceremony were from Citizens for an Elevated Solution, which will continue to press its case for replacing the viaduct with another elevated structure. The group has said the elevated replacement would cost less, be safer and allow above-ground movement of fuels to the marine industry in Ballard.

And members of the Waterfront Coalition said they'll keep making their case that the viaduct needn't be replaced with anything.

Co-chairs Grant Cogswell and Cary Moon said there are ways to improve traffic flow on Interstate 5, Spokane Street and on downtown streets to handle the traffic displaced when the viaduct closes. They said alternatives like those should be seriously studied, but haven't so far.

"If we can do this for one-tenth the cost, shouldn't we know?" Moon said.

TUNNEL PROS AND CONS

Pros

· Two-for-one project in which tunnel serves as sea wall.
· Opportunities to improve waterfront as a regional destination.
· Broader financial support than other options.
· Maintains traffic capacity.
· Includes ramps to Elliott and Western avenues.
· Reduces noise.

Cons

· Highest cost.
· Loss of view from viaduct.
· Flammable restrictions for vehicles and freight.

COST

$3.4 billion to $4.1 billion. Legislators say the state might contribute $2.5 billion

PROJECT TIMELINE

2006: Issue final Environmental Impact Statement.
2007: Obtain environmental approvals. Utility relocation begins.
2008: First phase design complete. Continued utility relocation.
2009: Begin construction.
2016: Project complete.