Deep-bore tunnel: dissecting the decision-making process

There's a question bugging a lot of people.

In an advisory vote, Seattleites in March 2007 rejected a proposal to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a $3.4 billion, four-lane, cut-and-cover tunnel, which Gov. Chris Gregoire criticized as unsafe and "irresponsible."

Then earlier this month, Gregoire, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and King County Executive Ron Sims agreed to replace the viaduct with a $4.25 billion, four-lane, deep-bore tunnel.

What the heck happened?

In short, Gregoire aligned herself with business, labor and downtown interests who saw a tunnel as the most viable technical and political solution, as well as with Seattle political leaders who have always wanted a tunnel to open up the waterfront.

The decision was influenced by assurances from tunneling experts that the technology has matured and the project can be accomplished with less risk and much less disruption than the earlier tunnel rejected by voters.

A cut-and-cover tunnel would require digging a giant trench along the waterfront, creating a traffic nightmare for local businesses that could last several years. The deep-bore tunnel would be drilled beneath First Avenue and likely allow the viaduct to remain in place until the project is finished. Advocates also say it doesn't have the safety problems of the proposal rejected by voters.

Reaching a consensus among Gregoire, Nickels and Sims was anything but easy.

After voters rejected replacing the viaduct with a tunnel, or a less-expensive elevated highway, political leaders were at a loss about what to do next. At the time, Gregoire had been backing an elevated highway and Nickels supported a tunnel.

So they agreed to step back and study the problem for 21 months.

Gregoire, Nickels and Sims ordered their transportation planners to look at all possible options for replacing the viaduct along the waterfront. They also set up a 29-member panel composed of business, labor, environmental and neighborhood organizations to advise the planners.

Fast forward to Dec. 11, 2008. After many, many meetings, the transportation planners came up with two recommendations for replacing the viaduct: a new elevated highway, or a surface route that included beefed-up public transit and improvements to Interstate 5.

The advisory panel, at the same time, loosely endorsed the surface alternative but urged the governor to keep studying a tunnel for the future.

Gregoire said in an interview Friday that she originally was leaning toward the surface option. But after the meeting in December she started making phone calls to people who would be affected by the decision.

The business community and others told her the surface route was a bad idea, Gregoire said.

One of the main concerns was that it would shift a large amount of traffic to Interstate 5. Transportation planners said improvements to I-5 could deal with the added traffic. But that meant the state would be out of options to handle traffic congestion on the interstate, she said.

Steve Mullin, president of the Washington Roundtable, an association of corporate executives backing the tunnel, said business did argue against the surface route.

"So you were back to either the elevated or the tunnel," Mullin said, "and it was easier to get political consensus around the tunnel than it was the elevated highway."

There was concern that so many Seattle interests hated the idea of an elevated highway, the project could end up in another political meltdown.

House Speaker Frank Chopp was the leading advocate for the elevated option. He's argued for replacing the viaduct with an elevated highway that would have a park on top and commercial and retail space underneath.

"Everyone was afraid of the aerial because of the political dysfunction," said David Freiboth, executive secretary-treasurer of the M.L. King County Labor Council.

"If we end up with Frank Chopp rolling everyone and saying we're going to build a wall down the waterfront, it's going to be war," he said. "We've had enough war."

Gregoire ended up agreeing that the surface proposal would not carry enough traffic. The tunnel seemed the logical choice, she said, given the benefits it provided and the intense opposition to an elevated highway.

"The goal all along ... was how do we open up the waterfront to make it appealing to the community at large and to tourists," Gregoire said recently.

Although the governor, Nickels and Sims appear united, it's not clear if they'll succeed in building a tunnel.

Environmental groups still prefer a surface route. Chopp still likes having an elevated highway. And the state Legislature, which has to approve all this, is still a big question mark.

Andrew Garber: agarber@seattletimes.com or 360-236-8268