No voting on viaduct; ball is in Gregoire's court now

With the Seattle City Council's decision Friday not to ask for voters' opinion on how to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, the road's fate is back in the state's hands.

In the next few months, Gov. Christine Gregoire is expected to decide how to replace the 53-year-old elevated roadway — with either a new elevated structure or a tunnel. She hasn't indicated which alternative she might favor.

In a 7-1 vote Friday, the council declared that a tunnel is its preferred option and sent a strong signal that it would resist replacing the viaduct with a new elevated highway.

But whether a replacement is constructed in the sky or underground, the funding for a new Alaskan Way highway depends on goodwill from state lawmakers.

Severe cost increases for both options — announced this week by the state Department of Transportation — mean lawmakers must locate hundreds of millions of dollars just to get either version started.

Legislative committees will start working on that problem in hearings as early as November, said state Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, chairwoman of the Senate Transportation Committee.

Even higher gas taxes are not the answer, she said. A transfer of money from other state services might be discussed but that would bring a backlash. Tolls will be a big part of the solution, Haugen predicted.

Transportation funding will dominate next year's Legislature, said state Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, a tunnel supporter who is running for a Senate seat.

No. 2 choice

As part of its decision Friday, the council passed an ordinance that reads, "In the event a tunnel proves to be infeasible, the city recommends development of a transit and surface street alternative."

In other words, if there is no tunnel, there should be no highway at all along the waterfront.

And the council passed another ordinance, drafted by Councilman Peter Steinbrueck, that asserted a new elevated viaduct would violate the city's waterfront height limits and shoreline-protection laws. Earlier, the city threatened to obstruct permits for an aerial highway if the state requires one.

The council's vote for a tunnel is the same position the city took two years ago, before the price tag of $3.6 billion for a tunnel climbed to what the state Department of Transportation called a "likely" $4.6 billion, or a high-end estimate of $5.5 billion.

The current Alaskan Way Viaduct is a state highway, built in 1953 along the Seattle waterfront. It was damaged by the Nisqually earthquake five years ago, has sunk slightly in soggy soil, and lacks modern safety features.

Where's the cash?

The new figure this week for an elevated structure rose from $2.4 billion to a "likely" $2.8 billion or more.

Before the cost increase, state lawmakers had informally committed to paying for a new, elevated highway to replace the existing one. But now they don't know where they would get the money to cover the increase. And the extra $1.8 billion or more for a tunnel would have to come from the city or other local sources, possibly including a regional transportation tax that voters will consider.

Murray, who is the departing House Transportation Committee chairman, and Haugen continue to think the state should provide the full amount that an elevated highway would cost.

Nine legislators from Seattle signed a letter endorsing the tunnel Monday, before the new numbers came out.

Haugen wouldn't take a position this week in the tunnel-or-elevated debate.

"I don't know; I think it [the tunnel] looks like an awfully high price tag," she said. "The city, they've got to come up with a whole lot of money and set priorities in their own area."

Mayor Greg Nickels, who favors a tunnel, has said he can get $2.2 billion from local taxes, utility fees, driver tolls, Port of Seattle aid and federal grants, an assertion some have questioned. That money, plus $2.4 billion in existing state and federal aid, would barely reach the new $4.6 billion "likely" figure for a tunnel.

Mike Mann, an aide to Nickels, said if the state finds more money for an aerial highway, the city ought to receive the same increase to put toward a tunnel.

Mixed reaction

Friday's City Council vote came after a half-hour public hearing in which some residents praised council members and others berated them for deciding not to submit the viaduct debate to a public vote.

Former Gov. Gary Locke read from part of a letter he, former Gov. Dan Evans; Sally Bagshaw, chairwoman of Allied Arts; and Kathy Fletcher, executive director of People for Puget Sound, sent to the council endorsing the tunnel.

"Inflation increases, construction costs and delay is our worst enemy," the letter said. "An advisory ballot at this point will provide little more than a six-week bully pulpit for strongly held opinions — and at the end of the day, the decision to recommend an option will still be yours."

Meanwhile, the No Tunnel Alliance is considering pushing a referendum to force a vote next year.

But such an effort could be irrelevant, because by next November the preferred viaduct alternative may already have been chosen.

Seattle Times staff reporter Jim Brunner contributed to this report.

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