If replacing Seattle's viaduct freeway with a tunnel will create a more valuable waterfront, why are taxpayers being asked to foot the bill at all?
The state has offered to pay most of the $2.8 billion to build a new elevated freeway. It's tempting to think that tolls and a charge on nearby property would cover the extra $1 billion or so for a tunnel. Unfortunately, several reports suggest that's unlikely.
Property assessments wouldn't work because too few building sites are directly affected, according to this analysis in the Seattle P-I:
With many parcels already built out -- and protections afforded by the Pioneer Square Historic District -- fewer than two dozen sites adjacent to the route appear likely candidates for redevelopment today, according to the city's rough guess of what property owners might do.
A new viaduct would be a disaster for the region that would last for a century, yet there's no sign of regional support for more funding. Concern that the city could live without the car capacity and that the money could be better spent helps the case for a package of transit and street improvements.
This hasn't kept Mayor Greg Nickels from counting on a grab-bag of funding, including an assessment on land near the viaduct that supposedly would generate about $250 million -- the limit without drastically eliminating future open space along the waterfront.
Still, removing the viaduct would have economic benefits, likely spread across the region. At least two reports found benefits totaling several billion dollars. Opponents say the figures are inflated and don't recognize that anything but a rebuild is a luxury the city can't afford. So far there's almost no support outside the city for having the region pay for a tunnel, even though the region would benefit.