The Seattle P-I editorial board doesn’t want to cut off talk of a tunnel option to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct:
We fear that eliminating any talk of a tunnel will lead to a political confrontation in Olympia that will favor another elevated monstrosity. Potentially, that would even reinvigorate the possibilities for House Speaker Frank Chopp’s overwrought, multistory highway-park-stores- and-offices mega structure, which the planners rightly intend to eliminate from further consideration.
[…]
Major surface and transit improvements must be in place when the current viaduct comes down, no matter what permanent plan is pursued. And, even with impressive recent enhancements for Interstate 5, the surface option is the cheapest. So, we hope Gov. Chris Gregoire, King County Executive Ron Sims and Mayor Greg Nickels will agree on the surface solution as their basic strategy.
We also believe, however, that the three leaders should reopen the idea of a compromise embracing the surface option with some sort of a commitment to studying a tunnel. The compromise wouldn’t have to be exactly the “hybrid” proposal favored by business groups. But it should include at least some traffic speed and volume metrics that would provoke a tunnel study if the surface streets and enhanced transit capacity prove less effective than supporters expect. After all, we think a surface-and-transit solution will work quite well for traffic, the environment and the economy, but we don’t know for sure.
I’m not sure how building the surface/transit alternative eliminates the possibility of a future deep bore tunnel, should technology improvements make it affordable and traffic demand it. But I see no harm in building in a committment to explore the possibility at some point in the future. After all, talk is cheap; it’s actual action for which our region has trouble coughing up the cash.
The thing that will stop another “elevated monstrosity” is building something else.
Are we all clear on “The Seattle” being a form of non-leadership now?
Our Goldy is learning to speak like a politician …
“I see no harm in building in a committment to explore the possibility at some point in the future.”
I will say this again,
Even if you built a 10 lane monster tunnel, 99 and Aurora are not designed to carry long haul traffic. They are primarily access roads into and out of Seattle. Only 20% of the load now is through traffic.
It seems to me that the logical thing is to make this part of a city wide effort at improving Seattle’s traffic plan with an eye to fostering mass transit and dense housing.
In the SJ plan, Aurora, 99, First Avenue, Elliot Ave, NW 15th, Rainier, MLK, 23rd/Montlake/LakeCity would all be re designated as NS boulevards with zoning intended to foster retail, high speed transit by bus or train, and access to high density urban villages as proposed by Mayor Rice.
All of these roads sort of serve this purpose anyhow but a combined effort would discourage the idea that Seattle is a truckstop on 99/5 while allowing greatly increased access into and through the city.
The harder issue is cross town traffic. Between the monstrosity that is I5 and decades of poor planning, Seattle almost totally lacks an EW traffic plan. Mercer is the worst example but the spaghetti’s patterns on the North side of Lake Union and the knotted streets on the south side of the city are all disasters waiting to happen.
As to money, maybe in the era of Obama, the WPA will see such efforts as national priorities? If the energy crisis means more people living in cities, then wouldn’t this be a good investment?
Hopefully, the retail development will be more tasteful than Aurora but perhaps in a more liberal society we could do with a few more cheap motels? (humor)