Several weeks ago I attended the Women of Washington meeting in downtown Seattle where Bellevue Square owner Kemper Freeman spoke about regional transportation. Mr. Freeman spent a million of his own dollars to commission a transportation study.

The audience was largely from Seattle so the Alaskan Way Viaduct project quickly became a subject of discussion. I don't remember the exact number but Mr. Freeman's study estimated that about half of the people who use the viaduct would use Interstate 5 if it weren't snarled.

Mr. Freeman pointed out that Seattle is a super regional city and that we need to increase road capacity if we want to keep our economy humming. So, he asked, if the goal is to move more traffic, then why not build a tunnel under Interstate 5 instead of under the waterfront? Again, if the goal is to move more traffic, then why replace the three lane viaduct with a two lane tunnel as proposed by Mayor Nickels.

People passing through Seattle who never stop downtown make up a lot of the Interstate 5 trips. An Interstate tunnel with two lanes of uninterrupted traffic in each direction would carry most of these trips leaving more capacity for people who now use the viaduct as a compromised alternate. A surface street between the Battery Street Tunnel and Spokane Street, perhaps a boulevard with a few well placed roundabouts, would easily handle traffic in and out of the central business district.

Mr. Freeman said that he pitched the Interstate 5 tunnel idea to our local politicians and to the MSM but was met with project killing silence.

Last night I attended a presentation of the hybrid two lane tunnel option given by Seattle Transportation Director Grace Crunican in the home of a Seattle architect. I believe that the presentation was approved by the Mayor's office.

Ms. Crunican gave a thoughtful sales pitch to us voting citizens, and convinced many in the room to vote for the tunnel option, but failed to overcome several objections from the audience such as the reduced number of lanes and probable cost overruns. Her graphic aids gave us a good view of how beautiful the tunnel design is and how awful a replacement viaduct might look. The graphics didn't show the seawall per se although the plan view did show an extra curve in the roadway to accommodate it.

One disturbing feature of the tunnel option is the massive "can of worms" interchange designed to accommodate heavy truck traffic in and out of the port. If the port goes upscale in the next few decades (think Canary Wharf in London) then Seattle will have a giant knot tied in its gut.

All this is supposed to be shown on the City of Seattle website but It must be buried because I couldn't find it. The WSDOT website has a very nice series of pictures that show the viaduct replacement options.
See http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/animations.htm and
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/

Several people grilled Ms. Crunican about hidden costs especially an environmental attorney with much experience litigating environmental surprises. He reminded the audience of the delays to the Hood Canal Bridge project caused by the discovery of Native American remains. She quickly responded that the budget included money for every possible surprise, and then she listed all of the agencies and Indian tribes that have already agreed to give the city a pass if anything bubbles up. I suspect that she is being a bit optimistic about environmental surprises given the muck that early Seattleites used for landfill.

The budget for the two lane tunnel along the waterfront is about 4.7 billion. How much would an Interstate 5 tunnel cost? I can't remember Mr. Freeman's exact estimate but it seemed to be in the same range plus or minus a billion or two. (Sorry to use politician math but I just couldn't help myself)

As a federal highway, Interstate 5 can qualify for federal matching funds. Federal funds would take a huge burden off the shoulders of Seattle taxpayers. Our State Senators should weigh in on this and bring home some pork.

In the end though, the waterfront tunnel project will happen because it is supported by downtown Seattle landlords, developers, architects, union bosses and big construction companies. Our city politicians will do their bidding.

For instance, the upcoming election is the part of the process that gives political cover. It's obviously crafted for confusion because voters get to vote up or down on both a tunnel and an elevated structure. It's entirely possible that a lot of people will vote up or down for both. If both pass or fail what will the city do? "Whatever it wants" is the short answer. Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to revisit the stadium and the monorail elections. I like the both tunnel options but I don't want to be taxed out of my house.