Replacing viaduct with surface streets could cost city the most

OLYMPIA — The cheapest option being discussed to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct could prove the most expensive for Seattle.

If the viaduct is torn down and replaced with surface streets and transit, the state might contribute just over $1 billion for construction work, said Senate Transportation Chairwoman Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island.

That's less than half of what the state has pledged for replacing the viaduct with another elevated highway, and could leave the city on the hook for nearly $1 billion to complete a surface-street project, based on some projections.

House Transportation Chairwoman Judy Clibborn, D-Mercer Island, said she hasn't run the numbers for a surface alternative, but that Haugen's figure was a good starting point. The problem with the surface option is it doesn't carry enough traffic, she said.

"We have to be aware of what we're buying," Clibborn said. "If we're not buying the capacity, if we're not buying the corridor, then we have other uses for that money."

The viaduct carries 110,000 cars a day and is downtown Seattle's only major north-south alternative to already overloaded Interstate 5. One surface option, a six-lane boulevard resembling the Embarcadero in San Francisco, could handle 40,000 to 70,000 cars a day.

The idea of tearing down the earthquake-damaged viaduct and improving surface streets and transit has gained momentum since the state's political leaders killed Mayor Greg Nickels' proposal for a four-lane tunnel earlier this week, calling it unsafe and too expensive.

Gov. Christine Gregoire has said the surface option wouldn't carry enough traffic to be worthwhile, but other political leaders, including King County Executive Ron Sims, are pushing the idea as the only politically viable alternative.

Gregoire and leaders in the state House and Senate are pushing for a $2.8 billion elevated highway to replace the one built in 1953. Gregoire has argued the state should bear the entire cost of that project.

Under Nickels' tunnel proposal, the city would have picked up the difference in cost between a new viaduct and the proposed $3.4 billion, four-lane tunnel.

So, if the Legislature budgeted only $1 billion for a surface alternative, that could make it the most expensive choice for Seattle.

Haugen doesn't see Seattle getting all the money the state has set aside, if the city demands a surface alternative.

"We'd never do that," she said. "We figure around a little over $1 billion, by the time you took it [the viaduct] down. We've looked at those numbers. They'd want to negotiate, but the fact is that our responsibility would not be necessarily at the same level as it is today."

One option being looked at is having the state pay for demolition of the viaduct, some surface restoration, work on an interchange at the south end and additional work in and around the Battery Street Tunnel.

But close to $1 billion worth of work, including replacing the seawall and relocating utilities, could be left up to the city to pay for.

Haugen said she'd probably want to use the state money left over to help replace the Highway 520 bridge over Lake Washington.

"And there's a whole line of people all across the state with really good safety projects looking for funding," she said.

The governor's office had no comment Friday. Gregoire has ruled out past proposals for a surface route because of concerns it could not carry enough traffic.

Seattle Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis said the city still believes a tunnel is viable. However, if the city ended up with a surface alternative, the state should pay for it, he said.

It's still a state highway, he said, "and they have an obligation to participate fully. I would expect we would not have a change. That the money that's been set aside would be available for that project."

Ceis said he expects that a surface alternative would cost around $2.1 billion.

"I don't know how you end up with the state arbitrarily telling us they're only going to put up $1 billion to solve a problem that is of their making," he said. "If we're going to move forward in a third way, I'd hope the state would do it without dictating terms from Olympia."

Andrew Garber: 360-943-9882 or agarber@seattletimes.com.