Is "Elevated Lite" a new possibility?

If Seattle officials are proposing an Alaskan Way tunnel that's four lanes instead of six, why aren't they suggesting the same for an elevated highway?

Mayor Greg Nickels argues that in the newly proposed "hybrid tunnel," four lanes can do the work of six, if the safety shoulders are converted to exit lanes at rush hour.

At a possible $3.4 billion, Nickels says the city would save $1.2 billion compared with an earlier six-lane, $4.6 billion tunnel plan.

The same reasoning hasn't been applied to the other choice on the March 13 ballot, a six-lane, $2.8 billion elevated structure.

Perhaps it should be, say City Council members Nick Licata and David Della, who favor an elevated replacement for the cracking Alaskan Way Viaduct.

"I've been saying that," Licata said, "but the idea is not getting much traction."

As the city heads toward its advisory vote on the tunnel-vs.-elevated issue, a council majority, the mayor and city transportation director Grace Crunican are not interested in studying what might be called "Elevated Lite."

"Any elevated — one, two, six lanes — we have categorically rejected that option because it is not in the best interests of the city, according to its elected leaders," said Councilman Peter Steinbrueck. "We've said that four times now, going back to 2001. We do not want an elevated structure. It would be a hideous result we would have to live with, for the next 100 years."

Meanwhile, Gov. Christine Gregoire expressed disappointment Tuesday in the city's ballot language, calling it "a disservice to the Seattle voters."

There are two questions. Voters are asked to pick yes or no for the new four-lane tunnel, then pick yes or no for a six-lane elevated structure.

"Simply put, this proposed ballot is confusing," Gregoire said in a letter to the City Council. Also, she faulted the city for not including cost figures on the ballot, for not putting before voters the official six-lane tunnel option, and for failing to ask voters if they are "willing to accept the additional cost of the tunnel," including any overruns. She insisted on those details last month, when she called for a citywide vote.

City Attorney Tom Carr has said the ballot title's 75-word limit didn't leave room to say where the figures came from.

Some say a "no" vote on both options may indicate that people want a waterfront without a highway.

Last year, Nickels gave the nickname "The Big Ugly" to an elevated six-lane option. Preliminary drawings showed a new aerial highway 1-½ times as large as today's viaduct, assuming wide safety shoulders and enough concrete to withstand a 2,500-year earthquake.

However, Licata says if speed limits were reduced from 50 mph to 35 mph, the freeway-sized shoulders could be narrowed. He hasn't suggested turning shoulders into exit lanes but said it's worth a look.

Final decisions rest with the state, which controls at least $2 billion in gas taxes earmarked for the project.

The state Department of Transportation (DOT) worked with the city for six days this month to study Nickels' new four-lane tunnel, but DOT has not confirmed the cost nor the claim that the smaller tunnel could provide enough traffic capacity.

House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, opposes a tunnel, on grounds there isn't enough money. He has said the state should seek to make the design of an elevated structure as attractive as possible.

Gregoire directed the state DOT, as part of a broader report on the project on Dec. 15, "to develop options that provide the highest achievable standards of urban design and architectural quality" for an elevated structure.

As of Tuesday, DOT had not launched technical studies of any new or narrower elevated designs. "My belief is, we will be asked to do that work, down the line," once the broader political decision is made, said Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald.

Council President Licata acknowledges that if Seattle voters say "yes" to an elevated structure, they are relying on city and state leaders to unite on a better design, and build it promptly, before the aging viaduct fails.

"You'd have to base it on the trust [in] the state Legislature, that they want to do something that is design-friendly for the city of Seattle."

Mike Lindblom: 206-515-5631 or mlindblom@seattletimes.com

Copyright © The Seattle Times Company