Jan Drago, what is your stance on the viaduct replacement? Summary: I like the tunnel. We did a lot of studies. Let’s not let the $6+ billion price of the full tunnel solution “muddy the public debate”, because I really like the tunnel.

September 29, 2006

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Project. We received hundreds of e-mails, letters and phone calls representing every point of view on this issue and stirring incredible debates. I truly appreciate everyone who took the time to contact me.

On September 22, the Council voted to select a tunnel as the preferred alternative. We also noted that if it is determined that a tunnel is not feasible, then we would begin to look at a surface + transit option. I would like to give you a little bit of history on how we reached this point and why I made the decision I did.

In February 2001, the Nisqually earthquake hit, significantly damaging the Alaskan Way Viaduct and raising questions about the viability of the Seattle seawall. The seawall is a form of levee that holds back the waters of Elliott Bay from flooding Pioneer Square and South Downtown. It also holds in place some of the soil into which the viaduct’s foundations are embedded. After years of patchwork repairs, the deteriorating seawall needs replacement. A failure of either the viaduct or the seawall will undoubtedly cause failure of the other.

After the Nisqually quake, the City partnered with the State to begin the long process of selecting a replacement for the damaged viaduct. Seventy-six different alternatives and options were considered and all but two rejected.

Along the way, the City held or participated in more than 300 public events surrounding the project, including community briefings, open houses, public meetings, public hearings, council meetings, fairs and festivals, making contact with thousands of people.

Since 2005, the Council has held 17 Committees of the Whole (COW) on the viaduct/seawall, including taking public comment at each, and has received public comment at other public hearings and meetings related to the viaduct. On January 10th 2005, a majority of the City Council selected the tunnel as the preferred alternative for the City.

During the 2006 Legislative Session, the Legislature did two things regarding the Viaduct project: it directed the governor to convene an expert review panel to look at the feasibility of the financing and implementation plans, and it delegated authority to the City legislative body (City Council) either to adopt by ordinance a preferred alternative for the Alaskan Way Viaduct or to place the selection on an advisory ballot to the voters of the City of Seattle.

On September 1, 2006 the Expert Review Panel (ERP) released its report which stated that the finances were sound and reasonable for the cut-and-cover tunnel. The ERP accepted the project’s funding assumptions as reasonable and stated there were no fatal flaws in the cost estimate. The report also stated that it was not necessary to do further cost estimating to select a preferred alternative. The ERP report gave us the confidence to move forward with selecting the tunnel as the preferred alternate.

On September 20th, two days before our scheduled final meeting on this project, WSDOT came out with new cost estimates. While the numbers have increased, the Expert Review Panel stated that these cost impacts could be mitigated by accelerating project implementation with early action items. Despite the cost increase, we heard from the ERP that a tunnel could still be built with the funding that the state and city have identified.

However, I do believe that the release of these new numbers muddied and confused the public debate. In light of this information, I support the decision of the Council to exercise its right to select the preferred alternative. This is not a decision I made lightly. The Council listened to the public, studied the issues for more than 4 years, deliberated thoroughly, and at final hour the release of new information changed the circumstances under which we were proceeding. We were elected to make the difficult decisions and did so with this issue, certainly one of the most complex, complicated important decisions ever faced by any Seattle City Council.

The vote last Friday reaffirmed the Council’s preference for a tunnel alternative. Thereby we make our recommendation to the WA State Secretary of Transportation Doug McDonald and to Governor Christine Gregoire who will make the final decision.

Selection of the tunnel as the preferred alternative provides us with an opportunity to reconnect the City with its waterfront for the next one hundred years and to create a marvelous public “front porch” for now and for generations to come.

Sincerely, Jan Drago, Chair
Transportation Committee
Seattle City Council

Related posts:

1. On the Viaduct Replacement: Jean Godden
2. On the Viaduct Replacement: Tom Rasmussen
3. On the Viaduct Replacement: Nick Licata
4. On the Viaduct Replacement: Peter Steinbrueck
5. On the Viaduct Replacement: Richard Conlin