Key legislators agree that there is little likelihood the state of Washington will be willing to spend more money on the Alaskan Way Viaduct than the $2.4 billion the Legislature has already paid out.

There seems to be some support for padding the appropriations with enough new money to cover inflation for construction materials over the many years of planning and study, but even that could be in doubt.

Meanwhile Governor Christine Gregoire is expected to decide by the end of the month whether to build a tunnel or a new viaduct along Seattle's downtown waterfront.

The Alaskan Way Viaduct carries a state highway so the elevated waterfront structure is owned and operated by the Washington State Department of Transportation. Even though private companies build the viaducts, bridges and highways in the state highway system, the components are designed by state transportation engineers.

The state usually manages all work on the state highway system alone but, because the Alaskan Way Viaduct is such a vital part of the city of Seattle, the state invited the Seattle Department of Transportation to work with the state in planning and other aspects of the replacement project. Together, the two departments compared the merits of building a tunnel, a new version of a viaduct, or patching up the existing viaduct. Both the state and city transportation departments recommended a tunnel as the solution.

Nevertheless, paying for replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct is, first and foremost, the responsibility of the state of Washington. The city, the Port of Seattle, and even the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers might each contribute millions toward the project but the lion's share of the cost will come from the state of Washington.

The Washington Legislature already appropriated $2.4 billion to the project in two recent legislative sessions. With a new legislative session scheduled to begin next month, are legislators inclined to approve spending additional money to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct?

"I can't imagine any scenario under which the Legislature would be willing to pony up more money for the viaduct replacement," said Sen. Margarita Prentice, chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, which approves money for state projects and recommends to the rest of the Senate how much and which projects get money.

"If we did do that, we'd have to take it from someplace else," Prentice said. "Where do they propose that we get it from? Out of education? Out of health care? Out of the state employees' collective bargaining agreement? Out of funding the prisons? I can't imagine that there would be anyone in the Legislature willing to do that."

Rep. Helen Sommers represents Ballard and is chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee, which makes similar spending recommendations to the Washington House of Representatives. There won't be enough money available to build a tunnel in addition to a new 520 Bridge and needed improvements on Interstate 405, she said.

"Yes, I believe we need more investment in transportation," Sommers said. She thinks there will be support to cover the additional costs caused by inflation, which has been particularly acute for construction materials.

"But I do not believe there will be enough money for a tunnel," she said.

Rep. Mary Lou Dickinson, who also represents Ballard and is a member of the House Transportation Committee, thinks the Legislature will be willing to spend additional money to cover inflationary costs but it's not going to be enough for a tunnel, she said.

"There are tremendous needs in King County for transportation, and I mean crushing safety needs," Dickinson said. "If we spend all of the money on a tunnel, there will be none left for other projects."

She thinks legislators would be willing to spend money on a proposal other than a replacement viaduct, but any alternative scheme would have to be buildable for what the Legislature is willing to pay, she said.

Included in the planning for replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct are two versions of each alternative. There is a "full tunnel alternative" and a scaled-back version of the same plan called a "core tunnel project." Similarly, there's a "full rebuild alternative" and a "core rebuild project."

The core tunnel project would have the same tunnel along the waterfront but would not include a new seawall. The core plan also eliminates planned improvements to Aurora Avenue north of the Battery Street Tunnel.

On the advice of an expert review panel appointed by the governor, cost estimates for replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct were recalculated. Earlier estimates by the State Department of Transportation were calculated using an inflation rate of 2.4 percent. The expert review panel pointed out that the cost of construction materials in recent years has been running between 6 percent and 10 percent.

Under the old calculations, the tunnel was predicted to cost between $2.98 billion and $3.63 billion. The updated estimate for the tunnel is now $4.63 billion.

New cost estimates also were calculated to build the core version of a new viaduct. The old estimate was $1.99 billion to $2.36 billion, while the updated estimate is $2.82 billion.

Sen. Erik Poulsen is vice chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee. He agrees there is little hope of getting more money for a tunnel.

"To think there will be more money from the state is a pipe dream," he said. "And I think more money for inflation from the state is dubious."

Poulsen has taken no position on whether the old viaduct ought to be replaced with a tunnel or a new viaduct. He's been thinking about another idea that seems to be gaining support: Tear down the existing viaduct but don't replace it. Instead, have traffic find its way through downtown on existing city streets.

If the surface-street alternative were used, Poulsen said, there would be millions of dollars in "mitigation funds" available to help deal with the resulting traffic congestion.

Tim St. Clair can be contacted at 932-0300 or at tstclair@robinsonnews.com