Surprise move may bury tunnel option for viaduct

OLYMPIA — An unexpected move to prevent Seattle from replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel emerged in the Legislature Tuesday and apparently has a good chance of passing the state House.

The House Transportation Committee approved a supplemental transportation budget with a provision that would effectively prohibit replacing the viaduct with a tunnel unless full funding for the project can be found by April 1.

The bill next goes to the House floor for a vote. It's not clear how the measure might fare in the Senate.

City officials said they were surprised and troubled by the move.

"It's an overt threat to the tunnel," Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis said, but he added that even if the bill becomes law, the city won't give up. "It's not the final act."

The state and city have been working for years to replace the viaduct, part of state Highway 99, which was damaged in the 2001 Nisqually earthquake.

The state Department of Transportation says it has enough money to rebuild the structure at a cost of about $2.45 billion. That includes $2 billion from the state gas-tax increase approved by voters in November, along with other state and federal money.

But the city of Seattle wants the state to build a tunnel, which would cost more but open the waterfront to new recreation and development. State officials have said they support the tunnel if the city can come up with the extra money needed for the project.

The latest estimates put the cost of the tunnel at $3.1 billion to $3.6 billion. But critics say the price could go much higher and delay replacing the viaduct, which engineers say could collapse in another strong earthquake. The structure was built in 1953 and carries about 110,000 cars a day.

Under the legislation, "unless something changes by April 1, we'd be going forward with only one option and that is the rebuild," said Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, D-Seattle, the amendment's sponsor.

Transportation Chairman Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, said he was shocked the amendment passed by a 26-2 vote in his committee. Murray, who supports the tunnel, voted against the amendment.

"I think the city is in serious trouble," Murray said. "I think the fact that a committee voted it out by that lopsided majority is quite a stunning thing."

Yet it's not clear how the proposal would do in the Senate if it passes the House.

Seattle Democratic Sens. Erik Poulsen and Ken Jacobsen, both vice chairs of the Senate Transportation Committee, said they want to keep the tunnel option.

Senate Transportation Chairwoman Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, said she's not sure how the bill would play out in the Senate. "I'm not going to hazard a guess," she said. "I expect tomorrow the mayor [of Seattle] will be down here."

The proposal has powerful supporters in the House, including Rep. Helen Sommers, D-Seattle, the House Appropriations chairwoman. "My constituents are very opposed to the tunnel," said Sommers, whose district includes parts of northwest Seattle.

Sommers said she had a number of concerns about the design of the proposed tunnel but also thinks it's just too expensive and could easily cost more than projected.

"The questions about another Big Dig are very strong," she said, referring to the infamous underground highway project in Boston that cost twice as much as the original $7.7 billion estimate.

Supporters of the amendment say cost overruns for a Seattle tunnel could suck up state and local money intended for other projects, such as replacing the Highway 520 floating bridge.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, who has been promoting the tunnel as a way to redevelop the Seattle waterfront, would not say what would happen should the amendment pass the state House and Senate.

However, he pointed out that the city has trimmed the viaduct plan, removing part of the seawall replacement and putting off plans to lower Aurora Avenue north of the Battery Street tunnel, and believes the city can put together enough money to build the project.

Ceis said that although the city couldn't meet the amendment's April 1 deadline, it can put together $3.2 billion for the project. That figure includes city utility and street money and $200 million from the Port of Seattle.

Raising the additional money, though, could mean an increase in the city's utility rates that would require approval by the City Council.

The city is also looking to a regional tax package that could add an additional $800 million for viaduct replacement, but it's uncertain when, or if, it would get on the ballot.

Ceis said the amendment could put the city in the unusual position of opposing the viaduct replacement. A majority of the City Council does not want the aerial structure, he said.

City Council President Nick Licata, who wants to rebuild the viaduct, said the amendment would give the council a chance to revisit the issue.

As for Ceis' assertion that there is enough money to build the tunnel, Licata said, "their money in hand is partly phantom dollars. That [amendment] is right on point of what I've been saying: Seattle is not being realistic in expecting the state Legislature to support a tunnel when there's no money to build it."

He also predicted a ratepayer revolt if the city raises utility fees to help pay for the project. "I don't think there is a groundswell of support for a tunnel throughout the city," Licata said.

Nickels called the amendment "counterproductive and very unfortunate."

"We had a cooperative working relationship, and this threatens to turn it into a more adversarial relationship, and I'm not sure it serves anyone's interest," he said.

Andrew Garber: 360-943-9882 or agarber@seattletimes.com