Political campaign heats up over viaduct

Campaigns for the March 13 vote on the Alaskan Way Viaduct are off and sprinting with just eight days to go before ballots in the all-mail election are sent to all registered Seattle voters.

The political messages are negative at the outset, stressing the shortcomings of rival plans more than the benefits of their own.

The No Tunnel Alliance formally launched its low-budget campaign Monday by saying the tunnel proposal on the ballot would make downtown traffic worse than a rebuilt viaduct.

Architects against a rebuild countered a few hours later with drawings showing that a new elevated highway would likely be larger than the existing viaduct. They also unveiled a short video, which they donated to the anti-rebuild campaign, that pokes fun at the viaduct as ugly and noisy.

One thing everyone seems to agree on is the unusual nature of the election. The City Council decided last month to put two ballot measures to voters in the city's first all-mail election, which requires ballots to be postmarked by March 13.

One asks if voters want to replace the aging, earthquake-damaged viaduct with a tunnel. The other asks if they want to replace it with a new elevated highway.

That means the election results could be difficult to read. For example, if voters answer both questions with a "yes," are they saying they want both a rebuilt viaduct and a tunnel?

What's more, the election is only advisory -- and state House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, has called it "meaningless" -- which suggests key lawmakers may not abide by its outcome.

Besides the potentially confusing results, there is a possibility they'll be ignored by some decision-makers.

"I've never been involved in a ballot that's taken this form," said Kelly Evans, who is managing one campaign that simply opposes a new elevated structure and another that is expressly pro-tunnel.

Council President Nick Licata and the No Tunnel Alliance held a news conference early Monday near a downtown viaduct offramp to stress that the tunnel proposal on the ballot would not offer a central downtown exit. Instead, exits would be only at the south and north ends of downtown.

"With that kind of arrangement, there's going to be more traffic congestion both downtown and on I-5. ... If you flood downtown with traffic, then buses will be jammed in with cars and that will not serve as an efficient transportation option," Licata said.

The No Tunnel Alliance campaign, which argues that a tunnel is unaffordable, will rely heavily on such media events. Licata said the group will be lucky to raise $50,000, partly because some of its supporters believe they've already, in effect, won the battle, given Chopp's adamant opposition to a tunnel.

To date, almost all of the group's $17,000 in contributions has come from two sources: downtown developer Martin Selig and Ballard Oil, which needs a viaduct to efficiently deliver home heating oil and marine fuel, according to company owner Warren Aakervik.

Selig's recent $10,000 contribution to the alliance represents the developer's most recent political foray. He gave $922,000 last fall to a campaign to repeal the state's estate tax, and he contributed $350,000 to an anti-monorail campaign in 2004.

Selig said a tunnel would likely cost far more than estimated and might prove as expensive as Boston's "Big Dig" project. He also said a viaduct is "vital" to transportation in the city and region. Selig said he didn't know whether he would contribute more to the No Tunnel Alliance. He personally supports a retrofit of the existing viaduct, calling it the "easiest solution." Selig has already helped retrofit supporters pay for sketches of their latest proposal and said he would "help them with whatever they need" in the future.

The architects who oppose a rebuild -- many from some of the city's most prominent firms -- held their own news conference Monday to spotlight drawings of what a new viaduct might look like. Walter Schacht, president of the Seattle chapter of the American Institute of Architects, said there was "overwhelming consensus in the design community" against a new viaduct. They claim it would be ugly and would create an even larger "wall" between downtown and the waterfront.

Schacht called a new viaduct a "1950s solution to a 21st-century problem" and urged voters to mark Proposition 2 against a new elevated highway. Schacht said the architects' group has not taken a position yet on Proposition 1 regarding a tunnel.

The architects' anti-viaduct focus is similar to strategies being embraced by other groups, including some tunnel advocates.

The Downtown Seattle Association is strongly pro-tunnel. But that group will probably concentrate its election efforts on stopping a rebuild rather than promoting a tunnel, said its policy director, John Taylor.

"This is a watershed election because if voters choose an elevated highway, that's what will be built," Taylor said. "At this point we want to make it clear that it's most important that we are adamantly opposed to a new elevated highway."

Evans said money will be spent on the anti-elevated and pro-tunnel campaigns, but it's not yet clear how resources will be apportioned.

The campaigns have already conducted a poll, made automated phone calls to voters, and are expecting large contributions which haven't yet been reported.

The anti-elevated campaign has reported $30,675 in contributions, with $25,000 of that from Downtown Seattle Association, which represents downtown property owners and businesses. The pro-tunnel campaign has received $5,000 from Douglas Walker, CEO of WRQ, a Seattle software company.

Last year, when the anti-elevated and pro-tunnel groups anticipated there might be a November viaduct election, they collected $165,000. But they spent all that -- mainly on polls, consultants, staffing and newspaper advertisements.

Bob Young: 206-464-2174 or byoung@seattletimes.com