Rick, we really are friends! Would you check with Godden and Della to see if they’re still mad at me about the little monorail stunt some friends and I pulled on them last year? I still haven’t heard back from them. Anyway, thanks for your email about the viaduct! Summary: Optimistic about the tunnel, but realistic.

Thank you for your message about the Alaskan Way Seawall and Viaduct Replacement project. On Friday, September 22, the Council adopted an ordinance that reaffirmed the Council’s endorsement of a tunnel as the City’s Preferred Alternative for this project. The legislation also explicitly rejected replacement with an overhead structure as contrary to the City’s long-range plan for reconnecting downtown to the waterfront and in conflict with city policies for shoreline zones. This legislation was approved by a vote of 7 to 1 (Licata voting no).

The Council recognized, however, that there are significant financial challenges to constructing the tunnel. While there is a financial plan that could provide enough funding, this is by no means assured, and the fiscal realities must be faced directly. The Council therefore included a Plan B in the legislation, which calls for developing a plan to use transit and surface roads if funding cannot be ensured for the tunnel. In a Resolution adopted unanimously on Monday, September 25, the Council laid out a set of criteria for assuring funding that must be met by next summer when the project reaches the 15 to 20% engineering level. The Council also asked the Washington Department of Transportation to proceed immediately with projects that are common to all alternatives no matter what is constructed in the Central Waterfront, such as rebuilding the Viaduct south of Pioneer Square as a surface structure, rehabilitating the Bell Street tunnel, and constructing projects such as the remodel of the Spokane Street Viaduct that will ensure mobility when major construction is underway.

In approving these plans, the Council sought to realize a vision for a new waterfront that will include new parks, a restored shoreline that enhances critical habitat for salmon, and good pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit connections. This goal must be balanced with maintaining adequate capacity for freight and automobile travel through the corridor while moving Seattle in the direction of our long-range vision for a transportation system that places less emphasis on the automobile and provides more choices for personal mobility.

It is important to note that the Council had already been through a long process of reviewing alternatives that culminated in January 2005 with adopting the tunnel as the Preferred Alternative by an identical 7 to 1 vote. However, the state is the ultimate decision maker on this project, and in 2006 the legislature decided on the last day of the session to ask the Council to go through an additional evaluation.

The Legislature gave the Council the choice of placing an advisory measure on the ballot or adopting an ordinance endorsing a preference. Until this time, there were no plans to take a public vote on the alternatives, and there was never any commitment or ‘promise’ made to take such a vote. Initially, a number of Councilmembers were leaning
towards placing the issue on the ballot, but as we looked more carefully at the legislation we realized that the ordinance was a better path for four reasons. First, the legislation gave little choice about what could be placed on the ballot, and made it difficult if not impossible to provide more than two choices or to explain the content of each
option. Second, the legislature clearly defined the ballot as advisory only, while an ordinance carries more legal weight. Third, we realized that it would be deceptive to tell Seattle voters that their vote really counted, when in fact the State has made no commitment to respect the preferences expressed in this ‘advisory’ vote.
Finally, we agreed that it is the responsibility of elected officials to make these kinds of decisions and not punt or dodge that responsibility. Since 2001, the Council has been hearing from citizens and conducting exhaustive public processes to give us insight on voter preferences — that process of consultation and citizen engagement is an
important part of democratic decision making. Placing something on the ballot should be reserved for specific real decisions, when it is necessary to have voters approve actual taxes to fund a well-defined project. Seattle was caught in the mess that the monorail ultimately became because it was easy for voters to say yes to advisory ballots and build momentum. It was not until the real financial situation became apparent that voters were presented with a concrete decision and chose not to proceed.

The Viaduct/Seawall project is complex and challenging, and this recommendation by the Mayor and Council is by no means the last word. The Governor will have to make a decision on a Preferred Alternative, and then the state will have to proceed with raising the funds and moving the engineering forward. The City has clearly expressed our intention to check progress on those issues when the engineering is far enough advanced to create a real budget, instead of the estimates that are currently used (which have huge contingency amounts which may or may
not be real). At that time, probably next summer, we should have a better idea whether the tunnel project is financially viable or whether it will be necessary to move to Plan B.

Councilmember Richard Conlin
Seattle City Hall
600 Fourth Avenue, Floor 2
PO Box 34025
Seattle, WA 98124-4025

(206) 684-8805