Outside View: Elevated sensibility

The following editorial appeared last Wednesday in the Everett Herald.

Now that Seattle voters will get no say in how to replace the aging Alaskan Way viaduct, the decision sits squarely with the governor. She should quickly and decisively put an end to what have already been costly delays and pick the only sensible option: build a new elevated highway along the Seattle waterfront, and start as soon as possible.

The other option, a six-lane tunnel, is far too expensive, and it risks drawing resources and attention away from other regional highway projects that are just as urgent. Updated cost estimates put the likely price of a tunnel at $4.6 billion (up from $3.6 billion), compared with $2.8 billion for a new elevated structure (up from $2.4 billion). More realistic inflation projections are responsible for the higher price tags.

Most of the money for a replacement viaduct is in place, and Gov. Chris Gregoire said Monday that the additional $460 million that’s needed should be raised through tolls – a reasonable approach that should be adopted on other major projects, too.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, who has been insisting on a tunnel, thinks he can raise the additional money through other sources, including regional transportation taxes that voters in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties are expected to weigh in on next year. That vote, however, is anything but a sure thing. If it fails – and the specter of an underground money pit might make failure more likely – a tunnel would be even more unaffordable, and the ultimate fix would be a year further behind and a year more expensive.

Until last week, Nickels and the Seattle City Council were ready to put the question of elevated highway vs. tunnel to a public advisory vote in November. They quickly dumped that idea when the higher cost estimates were revealed, no doubt fearing rejection of the tunnel. Instead, the council made its preference for a tunnel official on its own – a preference that isn’t binding on the governor.

The tunnel option just isn’t responsible, given limited funds and nearly limitless transportation needs. Tunnel projects tend to yield costly surprises. If there were budget overruns, where would the extra money come from?

Other projects, that’s where. Critical improvements throughout the state would be at risk, including major projects in Snohomish County.

It’s a risk the state can’t afford to take.