Stop the Tunnel?

Guy Nelson
08/31/2009

Is Seattle's waterfront tunnel project a done deal or not? It's perhaps the biggest issue in the mayor's race. Candidate Mike McGinn is against the tunnel. His opponent Joe Mallahan supports the tunnel. The short answer is yes, the tunnel could be stopped, but not easily.

The decision has been made to build the downtown waterfront tunnel.

That's what Judy Clibborn says. The Mercer Island Democrat chairs the state House Transportation committee. She oversaw legislative approval of the project, when lawmakers dedicated $2.4 billion in state gas–tax money to fund the tunnel.

But wait. Clibborn also says there's still the smallest possibility that the project could be stopped by legal action.

Clibborn: "That would be a very deep, like going to court or stopping the permitting and the type of things that would be very costly."

That's what mayoral candidate Mike McGinn has been saying. So in that sense, he's right. But here he's not so right:

McGinn: "The voters of this state have already approved $2 billion for viaduct replacement in a statewide imitative. We should spend that money on the viaduct replacement like the voters said we should. And we should do so in a way that fits within our budget and provides more transportation benefits than that tunnel does. On a surface hybrid transit option? I–5, transit, surface."

According to Clibborn, the $2.4 billion can't be transferred to the surface option.

Clibborn: "At this point the decision has been made to spend it on a tunnel. I think what was an option was replacing the viaduct."

A recent survey done by SurveyUSA says 49 percent of people in Seattle want to go ahead with the tunnel project. 43 percent oppose it. But what might happen if a new Seattle mayor and city council tried to stop the tunnel, going against the city's majority.

Representative Dan Roach says the legislature would not be happy to revisit the issue after wrestling with it last year. Roach is the ranking Republican on the House Transportation Committee.

Roach: "If another mayor got in and decided he didn't like the tunnel, then obviously you've got a very large city with a powerful mayor that is in opposition to what the legislature is trying to do. That new mayor may find some allies in Seattle proper there with some of the representatives and that could definitely disrupt things."

Another claim from Mike McGinn is that the surface – transit option is still supported by the Viaduct Replacement Stakeholder committee.

McGinn: "There was a working group put together from the State DOT, with the city and county employees, citizen advisors, and what they came up with was you could take out a downtown exit under the convention center, you get an additional lane through one of the worst choke points on I–5, make really significant investments in transit and they all said it would work."

But that's not really true, says Todd Vogel. He's a member of that committee.

Vogel: "There was not complete agreement that the surface alternative would work."

Vogel says the stakeholders went with the deep–bore tunnel because of a convincing report done by a Danish consulting firm.

Vogel: "And that happened to have been done by one of the world's great firms at understanding how to create walkable, bikeable places. And they found that the surface alternative would put far too many cars on the street to make a good place for people to walk and bike."

If the tunnel project goes ahead, the city of Seattle is pegged to pay $930 million on street and waterfront improvements. There's no firm plan yet to come up with that money. But the city would spend that same amount, on the same improvements, for a surface transit option.

Guy Nelson, KUOW News.

© Copyright 2009, KUOW