Now there's a title you don't see much here. Ed Murray, however, takes a reasonable approach to the long running viaduct v. tunnel debate in today's Seattle Times. Murray says the state needs to explore the surface boulevard option seriously, in large part due to serious opposition to both a rebuilt viaduct and the mega-project tunnel. Good for him.
Greg Nickels and other tunnel backers have a compelling point about the urban development benefits of not rebuilding the viaduct, particularly since the new viaduct would actually be significantly larger than the current version. Since the Growth Management Act isn't going anywhere, it makes a lot of sense to maximize the appeal of downtown density. A sans viaduct waterfront would fit that goal nicely.
At the same time, notable opponents of the tunnel, Democrat and Republican alike, are correct that the cost of the tunnel is too much for the region to bear given its other transportation needs (even if anyone seriously believes the tunnel would stay on budget). Furthermore, the expense of the tunnel would be almost guaranteed to serve as a tremendous drag on the substantial joint ballot transportation measure from RTID and Sound Transit expected to face most voters in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties in November of 2007. If transportation activists want that package to have a prayer of passing, they should kill the tunnel that is likely to give even tax-happy Seattleites pause. Nobody wants to vote for the next Big Dig.
One regrettably hears the word "quagmire" too often in the news these days, yet the term fits the tunnel v. viaduct debate quite accurately. Something has to change.
Murray wrote the letters because he wants another option if the state and the city get bogged down over the best way to fix the viaduct. He said his concern is "if the state and city are at war over an elevated structure versus a tunnel, that we find a way to move forward with a third option."
Exactly.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 02, 2006 10:48 AM | Email ThisThe tunnel is unreasonable because of the cost (with inevitable overruns) and the long construction period. The rebuild/repaired Viaduct is attractive because it would preserve if not increase the current capacity for a lower cost than the tunnel.
The surface option looks less expensive, but will reduce capacity. Those who point to San Francisco's Embarcadero as a successful model are deluding themselves. The Embarcadero was not a throughfare like the Viaduct. The better example is San Francisco's Central Freeway which used to be the throughfare connecting U.S.101 South to the Golden Gate Bridge. The Central Freeway was torn down in pieces after the 1989 quake and replaced by surface streets. It became very time-consuming and unpleasant to drive between north San Francisco and 101South. You'll get a similar result here if the Viaduct is erased. West Seattle and others who depend on the Viaduct will be seriously screwed. Fortunately, I'm not one of them. But there would be two expected impacts that we will all pay for one way or other:
1) there will be more traffic on I-5 through downtown, where we already suffer from the brilliantly planned Convention Center chokepoint
2) there will be more pressure for economically unfeasible "mass transit" to West Seattle (remember the Monorail?)
The main cost of a new viaduct is still replacing the seawall, making a third layer of the viaduct that is restaurants, or park space, or parking - all relatively cheap.
The main loser in that arrangement would be the landowners on the east side of the viaduct... aka the same people that are fighting the viaduct in the first place. Hmm.
Posted by: Al on December 2, 2006 01:18 PMGregoire Spoke wisdom while running for office on a no new tax platform. Then what the H happened when she wormed her way in.....?
She will make this decision, and it will be a 10 Billion dollar + Tunnel, even if that makes zero sense to anyone including many democrats.
It's a done deal, except for the massive tax hikes that will be necessary to ever see this any anyone's lifetime.
Posted by: GS on December 2, 2006 02:48 PMDowntown Seattle is just man's artificial intrusion into the environment, letting it return to nature is just an important first step.
EIS lawsuit anyone? CELP, Tribes? You gotta love
Seattle Liberals when they get caught up in theri own twisted rhetoric.
It's already impossible to get around down there (mostly due to the stupid buses dominating all of the streets since the tunnel is closed, but the traffic is awful anyway). Boondoggle or not, something has to handle the traffic that uses the Viaduct. The "surface only" nonsense isn't realistic. The tunnel is expensive and big, yes, and I favor a rebuild. I cannot, however, even imagine what I-5 and surface streets downtown would look like in the event of a surface-only plan. "Improved bus service" and other crap just won't work, and we all know it. Buses are all over the place in Seattle anyway. Unless you guys are going to tell my law firm to let me work from home everyday, or pay for a $1m concrete box downtown for me to live in, that's just nuts. Sorry.
Posted by: John on December 3, 2006 01:05 AMUnfortunately, there are a few million more people in the area, a little bit more infrastructure and a whole lot of irrational opinion about those two items. It is time for all Seattlites to pause, take a deep breath and acknowledge that we can't solve big city problems with small village budgets.
There is only one guarantee in discussion of transportation needs. Every day spent in discussing those needs is going to raise the cost of addressing those needs, no matter what choice is made. Sometimes delay is the worst choice of all.
Finally, everyone should remember that the same "Transportation Planners" who incorporated the "S curves" into I-405 to slow traffic on that little used stretch of suburban roadway, also planned the existing freeway system through Seattle. By perpetuating that "forward looking" thinking into future planning; by failing to consider different ways of doing things, we'll end up with many more S curves and Convention Centers in and on our travel routes.
I am not a tax and spend liberal. I have never voted for a Democrat for any responsible position. I am a realist.
Posted by: Old Soldier on December 3, 2006 05:48 AMWhat will happen is there will be agreement b/w the Gov. and Nickels in plenty of time before the ST2 and RTID vote. That way the political cabal gets to say to voters: "look, we were prudent. We are acting in your best interests. Now, vote for unlimited taxes for the next fifty years so we can dole out patronage."
The "tunnel" is not serious. The developers don't care: their payoff is the upcoming hight/density zoning restrictions that will be lifted in SLU and Northgate. Nickels has been planning on abandoning the tunnel proposal for months, just to make himself and the Gov. look good. She'll then take credit as a strong leader who caused Nickels to back down.
It's play acting. Don't feed those trolls.
Posted by: Roger on December 3, 2006 08:38 AM