1 ballot, 4 possible results: What the viaduct vote means

Elections almost always have clear results: one side loses, one side wins, someone takes office, a law takes effect.

That's not the case with next month's all-mail election on the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

For starters, it's an advisory ballot so its results lack the force of law. But that's just the beginning of the strangeness.

Because of the unusual way the questions are structured, Seattle voters could reject both a tunnel and a new viaduct, sending decision-makers back to the drawing board.

Or voters could say they prefer both a tunnel and a viaduct, which could send a message without a meaning.

House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, has declared the election "meaningless." Gov. Christine Gregoire, who called for the vote, says the tunnel proposal is flawed, and therefore dead.

"I have never seen a special election called for, and the results invalidated before the ballots were even mailed," said Matt Barreto, assistant professor of political science at the University of Washington. "From a democratic standpoint, it makes absolutely no sense."

So as voters sit down to mark their ballots — which go out this week and must be postmarked by March 13 — it may help to know how the results may be interpreted by those who will decide the fate of the earthquake-damaged viaduct and Seattle's downtown waterfront.

The ballot questions


Advisory Measure No. 1

Yes, I prefer the surface-tunnel hybrid alternative

No, I do not prefer the surface-tunnel hybrid alternative

Advisory Measure No. 2

Yes, I prefer the elevated structure alternative

No, I do not prefer the elevated structure alternative

Here are the four possible outcomes and their likely consequences:

Elevated and tunnel options lose

This result might force a compromise, and options such as tearing down the viaduct and using surface streets, building a smaller viaduct or just repairing the existing one.

Given that polling data has shown no overwhelming support for either option, Seattle City Council President Nick Licata, a tunnel opponent, predicts this is the most likely outcome.

It's also one that many environmental groups want because they don't like either option, or because they can't get their members to agree on one or the other.

If, after such a vote, the state pushes ahead with a new viaduct, some key players say it would encounter fierce opposition.

"If one side tries to shove something down the other's throat, it's not going to work," said Seattle Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis. "If the elevated loses, the mayor is not going to accept a new elevated freeway."

What's more likely is for political leaders to try to put aside their differences and forge a compromise.

All kinds of ideas — from building Elliott Bay bridges to repairing or retrofitting the viaduct — are likely to resurface.

Building a smaller, less obtrusive viaduct also might be discussed. But the idea gaining a lot of attention is the so-called surface-plus-transit option — which would tear down the viaduct and steer traffic to existing surface streets with improved transit services.

The surface option is the preferred second choice of the viaduct debate's chief combatants, Chopp and Mayor Greg Nickels. It's the first choice of King County Executive Ron Sims.

"I'm sure the surface people would take heart," Ceis said of a lose-lose outcome. "It tells political leaders that we have to go back to the drawing board. I joke that we need to bring in [former President] Jimmy Carter" as a peacemaker.

The governor and legislative leaders are discussing how to interpret such an outcome, said Marty Brown, Gregoire's legislative aide, but there's no consensus yet.

Elevated wins,

tunnel loses

This could lead the state to move forward with a new viaduct. Lawsuits likely would follow and, eventually, compromise.

People on both sides think this would lead the state to proceed with plans for a new viaduct, estimated to cost $2.8 billion. Almost certainly, that would lead to lawsuits, protests and other resistance from environmental groups, and perhaps downtown businesses and the city.

While Nickels has said he would abide by the election results, City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck — whose father led the fight to save Pike Place Market — has said he would oppose a new viaduct to his dying breath.

Some believe the state would overcome Seattle's objections. "It's certain there will be lawsuits, delays, added costs. But legal challenges will be quickly exhausted," said John Taylor, policy director at Downtown Seattle Association, a pro-tunnel group.

Eugene Wasserman, a leader in the No Tunnel Alliance, agrees, noting the state can declare the viaduct — part of Highway 99 — an essential public roadway, and roll over obstacles and challenges.

Others aren't so sure. "I'm not convinced an elevated gets built. The battle between the city and state would get uglier," said Cary Moon, co-founder of the People's Waterfront Coalition, which advocates the surface option.

Licata agrees that a victory for the elevated and a loss for the tunnel would not guarantee a new viaduct. "The governor may not want opposition festering when she runs for re-election in 2008."

"I don't think anything will ever be resolved until Seattle's elected officials come together with a common vision," said state Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, one of nine Seattle legislators who have urged a closer look at the surface option.

Elevated loses,

tunnel wins

State officials almost certainly would balk at this result, and negotiations for various options would ensue.

Moon sees this outcome leading to another noisy battle because of state opposition to a tunnel, a project the city estimates at $3.4 billion. She thinks the tunnel would "probably die for lack of money."

Licata has a similar view. "I don't think a majority of state legislators would consider it a legitimate vote because they feel the tunnel [cost] numbers on the ballot are not accurate," he said.

Plus, state transportation officials have said the proposed tunnel would have "serious operational and safety problems," in part, because shoulders would be used as exit lanes at rush hour.

So what then? Wasserman says it's up to the Legislature, which controls $2 billion in gas-tax money already earmarked for a new viaduct.

But, said Kelly Evans, who is managing anti-viaduct and pro-tunnel campaign, "City and state leaders would need to sit down and figure out something because voters can't be ignored."

What they probably would consider would include the use of surface streets with upgraded transit, construction of a smaller viaduct and a new tunnel proposal with more details about cost and design.

Elevated and tunnel win

It's too much of a longshot to even guess what would happen.

The notion that voters would say yes to both is seen as very remote — and some say it would be viewed as a quirky, indecipherable product of a poorly conceived ballot.

"Oh, man, I can't imagine it happening," Moon said.

Polls, including a Seattle Times poll last fall, show a tunnel consistently failing to get majority support.

Ceis said if both the elevated and tunnel win, people might give more weight to the one with more votes.

But Licata said the tunnel would have to get over 60 percent support to receive much credibility with the Legislature, "and I don't think it will ever happen."

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