Here's why the viaduct ballot will ask voters two questions

On Friday, I led the Seattle City Council's creation of an advisory ballot on the replacement alternatives for the Alaskan Way Viaduct. This special election on March 13 will feature two questions. The first asksSeattleites' opinion of a four-lane, surface/hybrid tunnel replacement; the second asks how the voters feel about an elevated rebuild of the quake-damaged viaduct.

In the wake of this decision to go to the ballot, the media and many citizens have asked: Why are there two separate measures instead of a head-to-head comparison between the surface/hybrid tunnel and the rebuild? In order to answer that question, I need to provide some context.

The City Council has been very clear about its opinion on the replacement of the viaduct. We have voted three times in favor of a tunnel replacement for the viaduct. While the council's message has been consistent, the state's cost estimates have not been so steady.

On Sept. 1, an expert review panel convened by Gov. Christine Gregoire to review the financial feasibility of replacing the viaduct found that the state's plan for covering the cost of either the tunnel or a new elevated highway was "reasonable." The panel did, however, criticize the state for underestimating the costs of inflation in the project.

On Sept. 20, the Washington State Department of Transportation released new estimates of the viaduct-replacement costs using different inflation figures. While the cost of a new elevated highway increased dramatically from $2.4 billion to $2.8 billion, the price tag for a six-lane tunnel soared by $1 billion, from $3.6 billion to $4.6 billion.

It was obvious that the cost of a six-lane tunnel was becoming prohibitive. Mayor Greg Nickels and the council majority began to explore other options.

On Dec. 15, the governor called for a public vote bySeattleites on the viaduct-replacement options before the scheduled end of the state legislative session on April 22. On Jan. 18, the mayor and I presented the governor with some important news: The six-lane tunnel could not be paid for at $4.6 billion, but we believed that an alternative surface/hybrid, four-lane tunnel could be built for $3.6 billion. In response, the governor gave us an ultimatum: Hold an election on March 13 or prepare for a new elevated freeway.

Given that ultimatum, we came up with a ballot that we thought was most fair to Seattle voters. First, it didn't make any sense to put a six-lane tunnel that could not be paid for on the ballot. Neither did it seem fair to ask for a head-to-head vote between a fully developed elevated highway and a four-lane tunnel that has not yet been completely vetted. We opted to ask for separate, up-or-down votes on both a new elevated highway and a surface/hybrid tunnel.

While some have warned that this may lead to both options being approved by the voters, it is highly unlikely that both the tunnel and the rebuild would get more than 50 percent of the vote. Even if that did occur, one of them will get more votes than the other, making it clear which option more voters prefer.

We realize that this solution is not perfect. Nothing about replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct is perfect. We did the best that we could under the constraints that we were working with. We believe that the results of the March 13 ballot will help move the political process forward so that we can do the one thing that everyone agrees is vital: Replace the viaduct as soon as we possibly can.

Jan Drago chairs the Transportation Committee of the Seattle City Council.