Tunnel option gets City Council endorsement

The Seattle City Council today voted to adopt a tunnel as the preferred alternative for replacing the Alaskan Way viaduct, eliminating a public advisory vote in November.

The council voted to embrace the tunnel – the same position it took two years ago – after learning of soaring costs for both the tunnel and an elevated rebuild of the viaduct.

The ordinance also said, "In the event a tunnel proves to be infeasible, the city recommends development of a transit and surface street alternative."

Mayor Greg Nickels, who had initially supported a vote, said he changed his mind after learning of the new numbers, feeling they were too uncertain to send to a vote.

The State Department of Transportation on Wednesday said new costs estimates increased the price of a tunnel from $3.6 to $4.6 billion and the elevated structure from $2.4 billion to $2.8 billion.

The council also supported an ordinance by Councilman Peter Steinbrueck, that asserted a new elevated viaduct would violate the city's waterfront zoning laws and wouldn't be allowed.

The ordinance says that an elevated highway "is inconsistent with current use and height regulations. . . and the city's comprehensive plan."

It says that it violates the city's Shoreline Master Plan and a long list of other regulations that affect the waterfront.

The council said it also intends to amend the existing comprehensive plan to further clarify that an aerial highway on the central waterfront is inconsistent.

Gov. Christine Gregoire had asked the council to either choose a preferred alternative, or put it to a vote. She is expected to choose how to replace the viaduct late this year or early next year.

Meanwhile, the No Tunnel Alliance, a group of activists who oppose the tunnel, are considering pushing a referendum to force a vote next year.

The group would have 30 days after the mayor signs the ordinance to collect 13,783 valid signatures. If successful, the referendum would be placed on the November 2007 ballot unless the council chose to call a special election.

Such an effort could be irrelevant, because by next November the preferred viaduct alternative will already have been chosen.

"Part of the point would be that in the process of collecting several thousand signatures and securing the referendum, we'd be sending a strong message to the governor and legislators that the Seattle public doesn't want nor will it accept a tunnel," said John Fox, one of the No Tunnel Alliance leaders.

Jan Drago, chairwoman of the council's transportation committee, said she isn't worried about a referendum because the council's decision to endorse the tunnel is considered an administrative action by the authority of the state, and wouldn't be subject to referendum.