Public opts for tunnel to replace viaduct

By Susan Gilmore
Seattle Times staff reporter

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most e-mailed articles

When the state released its environmental-impact statement (EIS) for viaduct replacement, it asked for public comment; 239 of 664 responses supported the tunnel, documents released yesterday show.

Rebuilding the existing viaduct, favored by 188 people, was second-most popular. Least popular were a bypass tunnel, supported by 18 people, and a surface street, backed by 12.

The state Department of Transportation also released new, lower cost estimates for some of the five alternatives. It plans to announce a preferred alternative late this summer. Here are the options and what the public said:

The tunnel

Cost for this alternative had been estimated at $3.6 billion to $4.1 billion. With the new figures, $3.4 billion to $4 billion, it's still the most expensive.

Backers say a tunnel provides the best opportunity to connect the waterfront to downtown and to redevelop the waterfront with public open space. Long-term benefits, they say, are worth the higher cost. Tunnel backers include: Allied Arts, Historic Seattle, the Downtown Seattle Association, Diamond Parking, the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce and the Port of Seattle.

Opponents point to cost, dislike of driving in tunnels and loss of views.

Rebuild

Cost estimates for rebuilding the viaduct in its existing location, including ramps at Seneca and Columbia streets, had been $3.2 billion to $3.5 billion. The new estimates: $2.7 billion to $3.1 billion. Supporters, who include the Ballard Interbay North Manufacturing Industrial Council, the North Seattle Industrial Association and 119 residents of Ballard and Magnolia, say rebuilding would protect traffic capacity and views and cut costs. Opponents cite the barrier between downtown and the waterfront and noise.

Aerial
 
This would replace the viaduct in its existing location, but with wider lanes and with shoulders. Cost estimates have dropped from $3.2 billion to $3.5 billion to $2.7 billion to $3.2 billion.

Backers say it would preserve views and enhance safety. Opponents say it would cut into waterfront open space and separate downtown from the water.

Supporters include the Admiral Community Council and the Ballard District Council.

Bypass tunnel

This would replace the viaduct with a four-lane tunnel along the central waterfront, and Alaskan Way would grow from four to six lanes. Projected costs, $3.1 billion to $3.6 billion, are unchanged.

Backers like the lower costs. No organizations, elected officials or agencies supported this option.

Surface

The cheapest option, an at-grade six-lane roadway along Alaskan Way, is estimated to cost $2.3 billion to $2.7 billion. Supporters like the price and shorter construction time and say this may be the only option that can be funded. No organizations backed this option.

Eighty-six people, including supporters of the People's Waterfront Coalition back a "no-replacement" alternative, and want the state to study simply removing the viaduct. Project manager Maureen Sullivan said doing nothing is unfeasible because traffic volume must be maintained.

The final EIS is scheduled to be released in December.

Susan Gilmore: 206-464-2054 or sgilmore@seattletimes.com