Steinbrueck wants surface street, says viaduct violates law

Saying he wants a surface-street option taken more seriously, Seattle City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck proposed an ordinance Monday declaring it would be illegal to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with an elevated structure.

Steinbrueck said the elevated-viaduct option should be taken off the table because it would violate city law. The shoreline master plan approved by the state, he said, prohibits non-water-related uses within 200 feet of the waterfront.

Steinbrueck's proposal came as nine state lawmakers wrote to Gov. Christine Gregoire urging support for a tunnel.

But new cost figures the state plans to release this week could raise questions about the feasibility of that option, which is being pushed by Mayor Greg Nickels.

Those are the latest developments in a protracted debate over the viaduct — including whether to ask voters in November whether they would prefer a tunnel or an elevated structure as a replacement.

While the council had been moving to put an advisory measure on the ballot, it took no action Monday, deferring that and Steinbrueck's proposed ordinance until Friday. That is the deadline for placing a measure on the ballot.

City Councilwoman Jan Drago said the council put off its vote Monday so it can hear new cost estimates for both viaduct-replacement options. Those estimates, which are expected to be substantially higher than current estimates, will be released to Gregoire on Wednesday, Drago said.

A review panel appointed by the governor issued a report Sept. 1 criticizing the state Department of Transportation (DOT) for using overly optimistic inflation rates in its cost estimates.

The state used an annual inflation rate of 2.4 percent, but panel members said the rate should be 6 percent to 10 percent.

Based on the lower inflation rate, state officials had estimated costs at $3 billion to $3.6 billion for a tunnel or $2 billion to $2.4 billion for an elevated structure.

Steinbrueck said high costs might keep the advisory measure from ever making the ballot.

"Mega-projects nationwide have increased over 40 percent in cost overruns," he said. "We need to rethink this, that's the bottom line here. We need a more environmentally friendly project."

A majority of City Council members have said they'd prefer to pass an ordinance endorsing the tunnel without sending the issue to the ballot, an option given them by the state Legislature earlier this year. But many said that could cause a political backlash, with voters expecting to have a say on how the viaduct is replaced.

Regarding the issue of the legality of an elevated structure, Steinbrueck acknowledged that if the city pushes his point it likely would end up in court.

Ron Paananen, viaduct-project manager with the DOT, said that once the state makes a viaduct decision it would work with the city to address the issues Steinbrueck raised.

"The comprehensive plan can be amended," he said. "This is not going to be a deciding factor."

Steinbrueck said he's brought up his concerns with the DOT but has received no response.

Also yesterday, nine Seattle legislators wrote to Gregoire, urging her to support the tunnel.

"A tunnel allows us to tear down the ugly viaduct that divides downtown and the waterfront," said the lawmakers. "The cut-and-cover tunnel allows us to create open space for families, workers and tourists to enjoy the waterfront of our beloved Puget Sound. Seattle has already made the mistake once of cutting off its front porch; we believe we should not repeat this mistake."

The letter was signed by Sens. Ken Jacobsen, Adam Kline, Jeanne Kohl-Welles and Pat Thibaudeau and Reps. Zack Hudgins, Joe McDermott, Jim McIntire, Ed Murray and Eric Pettigrew.

Times staff reporter Jennifer Sullivan contributed to this report.

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