The region can't afford a tunnel

In the past year, there has been a lot of discussion about the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement. Unfortunately, there has been little discussion of the tunnel option's appropriateness for the entire region.

It's time for the region, outside of Seattle, to say "no" to a tunnel.

I sit on the executive board of the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID), which is primarily charged with funding highways of statewide significance in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties. Last session, the Washington state Legislature mandated that RTID (roads) and Sound Transit (mass transit) put a unified transportation package on the 2007 ballot. Both packages must pass for either one to take effect.

Mayor Greg Nickels has produced a tunnel-financing plan that assumes $800 million will come from the RTID package. What his plan does not tell you is which regional projects will be eliminated from that package to fund the tunnel.

King County can expect a maximum investment of $4.5 billion for its most critical highway projects from the RTID. Funding the mayor's plan, the Highway 520 bridge-replacement project, improvements to Interstate 405, completion of Highway 509 and improvements to Highway 167 will cost more than $6 billion.

A state expert review panel convened to determine whether plans and cost estimates for the viaduct and 520 bridge projects were reasonable. It told the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to double its estimated rate of inflation for both projects. That's led to a 40 percent cost increase for the 520 bridge and a 22 percent cost increase for the viaduct tunnel.

As project costs rise, spending $800 million or more may come at the expense of other regional priorities — such as the 520 bridge.

Few disagree that the Alaskan Way Viaduct might be destroyed in the next big earthquake and needs to be replaced. But the essential difference between a replacement viaduct and the tunnel option is a waterfront park.

In my estimation, building a waterfront park provides no identifiable transportation benefit.

Debate on the viaduct project has focused on the Seattle mayor and City Council. The governor ultimately decides the preferred alternative, but the entire region, through RTID, is being asked to fund Seattle's tunnel adventure.

The argument within Seattle has become so nasty that, to drive up costs, Mayor Nickels' staff has threatened to hold up city permits on the replacement option. That would not be helpful for the process or good for taxpayers.

It's time to step back and prioritize the overall benefits of each project. This region cannot miss the opportunity to make improvements to its transportation system that will serve the next generation. It should wisely spend its very valuable transportation dollars on projects that reduce congestion or increase mobility.

The tunnel option addresses neither — and does so at the cost of other regional projects. If the city of Seattle wants a waterfront park, then it should propose a parks levy.

From the perspective of a King County resident outside of Seattle, I say the region can't afford a tunnel.

Reagan Dunn is a resident of Bellevue, a King County Council member and a member of the Regional Transportation Investment District executive board.