According to Holly Armstrong, spokeswoman for the governor, this:
is NOT a report. Then what is it? An eight hundred and fifty page piece of brainstorming?
According to David Dye (WS-DOT’s urban corridor guy), this:
is a “glorified file memo.” Sure, right.
I wonder if Seattle’s legislators, many of whom signed a letter saying they do not support WS-DOT’s ‘rebuild’ option, are going hold somebody accountable over this ignored study.
Oops… I mean “glorified file memo.”
Governor Gregoire seems intent on painting herself into a rhetorical corner with her adamant refusal to seriously consider any option for replacing the Alaska Way Viaduct that doesn’t include a massive, double-decker freeway running through Seattle’s waterfront. Which is really a shame, because the surface-plus-transit alternative is shaping up to be a political compromise in which nearly everybody could claim victory… even the Governor.
Make no mistake, the surface option is gaining ground. The Governor may have successfully torpedoed the political viability of Mayor Nickel’s tunnel, but that has only resulted in rebuild opponents coalescing around a single alternative. A sure sign of this shifting momentum was the raft of public statements made by legislators earlier this week warning that a surface solution could cost Seattle taxpayers a pretty penny.
A rebuild, we are told, would be entirely financed by the state, but the surface option might draw only a fraction of the state funds already committed to the project. This was intended to scare Seattle voters into choosing the devil we know, but it was unintentionally revealing. First, it shows that even Olympia’s rebuild proponents now take seriously the surface option’s political viability. Second, it put forth a lower range — a billion dollars — from which the city can now negotiate the state contribution. Somewhere between $1 billion and $2.8 billion dollars… that’s how much we can expect from the state for a surface-plus-transit solution.
And I’m guessing the final figure would be closer to the middle-to-high end of the range. Rebuild, tunnel or surface, the state still has to tear down the existing structure, modify ramps to and from the Battery St. tunnel, and rebuild both the seawall and the elevated structure from the 1st Ave. ramps to the West Seattle Freeway. We constantly focus on the 2-mile stretch across Seattle’s downtown waterfront, but that’s only part of the project, and thus part of the costs. There is a political argument to be made that state taxpayers should not be expected to pay the bill for all of the local surface and transit improvements such an option would entail, but I’d be surprised if the state could get away with less than a $2 billion contribution.
But by ignoring the growing momentum towards a surface solution the Governor risks blowing political capital on a fight that at best, might earn her a Pyrrhic victory, for as much as she now pooh-poohs the public vote she once called for, voters in this state take their plebiscites seriously. A close vote might be easily dismissed as inconclusive, but should voters overwhelmingly reject a rebuild, the Governor’s tough stance puts her in the position of either appearing to cave to Seattle bullies — exactly the perception she’s apparently trying to avoid — or alienating her political base.
Not exactly where she wants to be heading into a contested election.
So how does the Governor turn this into a win-win situation? The Governor has repeatedly drawn a line in the sand, demanding that any Viaduct replacement must maintain capacity. The key to accepting the surface option as both a transportation and political compromise rests on how we define the word “capacity.”
In recent months, WSDOT has insisted on defining capacity in terms of moving vehicles, but that’s not always been the focus of transportation planners. Indeed, the Environmental Impact Statement sets forth a broader vision of the project’s purpose:
Purpose of the Proposed Action
The purpose of the proposed action is to provide a transportation facility and seawall with improved earthquake resistance that maintains or improves mobility and accessibility for people and goods along the existing Alaskan Way Viaduct Corridor.
Hard-nosed rebuild supporters have mocked King County Executive Ron Sims as some kind of enviro-whacko hippie for stating that we should be focused on moving people, not cars — but that’s exactly the stated purpose put forth in the EIS. And that’s exactly the language the Governor needs to join former tunnel supporters in support of a surface compromise.
It’s not a matter of redefining the word capacity — “mobility” was always the definition from the start, and accepting an alternative that improves mobility, while perhaps decreasing vehicle capacity, is perfectly consistent with Gov. Gregoire’s line in the sand. That is, as long as she doesn’t paint herself into a rhetorical corner by insisting otherwise.
From today’s Seattle Times:
A previously unreleased report shows that when the state’s Alaskan Way Viaduct project team examined a four-lane-tunnel concept in January, the group thought the tunnel could handle the expected traffic.
Since then, the state Department of Transportation (DOT) reversed course, concluding Feb. 13 that the option nicknamed “Tunnel Lite” — in which cars would use the shoulders as exit-only lanes at peak times — would be unsafe. Gov. Christine Gregoire promptly declared she would only support a $2.8 billion six-lane elevated highway.
The State of Washington studied the Hybrid Tunnel January 8th through the 12th, 2007. They looked at several elements of the plan: cost, capacity, the “flex” lane, the tunnel’s shoulders, freight mobility, and more. The Hybrid Tunnel, the City of Seattle’s official choice for replacing the Viaduct, was to be included on the March 13th ballot. The 50 page study produced showed the Hybrid Tunnel to be not only cheaper than the original tunnel proposal but technically feasible in every respect.
But on January 12th, Governor Gregoire stopped the study.
On February 13th, WSDOT flip flopped, and declared the Hybrid Tunnel unsafe.
While I have not favored building a tunnel on the waterfront for some time, this news strikes me as being incredibly unfair and dishonest. WSDOT, including Doug MacDonald and David Dye, appear to have disregarded the facts with which they don’t agree in favor of facts that fit their goals: building an elevated freeway on the waterfront.
These revelations show that the tunnel never got a fair shake, and it gives me every reason to believe that the ‘surface plus transit’ plan will never get the fair shake either.
If a workable $3.4 Billion Hybrid Tunnel is rejected in favor of a Frank Chopp Fantasy Viaduct, the price of which could easily exceed $3.4 Billion, can Gregoire, Chopp, and other legislators honestly say with a straight face that a “rebuild” is any more financially viable than a hybrid tunnel? Gov. Gregoire demanded that the public have a vote on what is built; she said such a decision should be made by Seattle voters. From that moment on, the State of Washington has done everything it can to rig this March 13th vote.
Seattle voters have been told that no matter which way we vote, the “rebuild” is the winner. Legislators have told Seattle voters that they’ll lose funding if they go with the “surface plus transit” option. Speaker Frank Chopp has declared that he’ll ignore the March 13th vote if Seattle chooses a tunnel. It is political theater that is being staged at Seattle’s expense.
In 2004, Governor Gregoire promised, if elected, that she would “blow past the bureaucracy.” She should start now.
Washingtonians unhappy with our state’s inability or unwillingness to pour new concrete should move to Florida, where the state with our nation’s second most regressive tax structure (we’re number one!) seems intent on spending what money it has paving over the Everglades and its surrounding countryside.
For all but one of the past seven years my daughter and I have taken advantage of the Seattle School District’s mid-Winter break to visit her grandparents in Palm Beach Gardens, and each year I am astonished by the amount of new construction. Fueled by the region’s burgeoning population and the MacArthur Foundation’s divestment of its huge land holding’s there, whole cities seem to sprout into existence overnight, where horse farms, forest and citrus groves once flourished. And feeding this development, like the vascular system of some fast growing tumor, is an ever expanding and widening network of roads and highways.
Eight-lane boulevards now flow where two-lane roads once cut a lonely trail only a few years before. In Wellington at what a decade ago was a quiet country intersection, a huge overpass is being constructed to ease thru-traffic past the now chronic backups. And the West Palm Beach International Airport, preparing for yet another expansion, continues to sprout bypasses and overpasses and underpasses in all directions to handle the steadily increasing traffic.
Inside the retirement community where my mother lives the changes are invisible, but on each annual visit, driving out the front gate for the first time is like stepping off an elevator onto a random floor — I never know what I might find on the other side. Possessing neither a sense of direction nor a memory for street names, I would be totally lost attempting to navigate the streets on my own. Landmarks, visual cues, even the footprint of the roadways themselves are as fleeting as our few days of sunny respite from Seattle’s usual Winter dreariness.
This is a region of endless sprawl, aided and abetted by a government that seems to be built on the Democratic principle of “one car, one vote.” New roads spawn new developments, more development generates more traffic, and the government responds by constructing new and wider roads. In my handful of car trips since arriving late Saturday night I must have travelled on at least a half-dozen roads with capacity matching or exceeding the Alaska Way Viaduct — many in the process of being expanded.
And yet, the traffic continues to grow worse.
Of course, the Puget Sound region has traffic problems of its own, but to those who would demand a Department of Transportation as accommodating as that in South Florida, I suggest you visit and closely consider the consequences. If the Southcenter Mall stretched for mile upon mile, dotted with palm trees and the occasional golf course or gated community, that would approximate the main thoroughfares that run through a region recently rich with wildlife and natural splendor. With a few notable exceptions, local developers have literally made a mockery of rational urban planning, building sprawling, new retail complexes with names like “Downtown” and “Midtown” — appellations meant to evoke a mental image of the Northeast cities many of the aging transplants left behind, while totally rejecting the principles of density that enable these cities to function as vibrant urban cores. “Downtown Palm Beach Gardens” is a mall like any other mall, with a Cheesecake Factory, a 16-screen cineplex, $6.00 gourmet ice cream cones and ample parking. It is not however, as its name implies, anything resembling a city.
I spent the first 29 years of my life in Philadelphia and New York City, never owning my own car, and never contemplating buying one. It was a shock moving to Seattle, where even living downtown, regular access to a car is a virtual necessity, especially for families with children. But if you think the Puget Sound region is auto-centric, you ain’t seen nothing compared to this section of South Florida. As the local population explodes, the region is building a sprawling infrastructure that will be impossible to efficiently serve via mass transit should the need or desire ever arise. And it will. As the world hits peak oil production over the next twenty years while struggling to limit carbon emissions, the cost of fueling our cars will surely quadruple or more in real dollars. I wonder how this region, so reliant on automobiles and air conditioning, will continue to prosper in an age of energy scarcity and rising temperatures?
It is no doubt endlessly frustrating — and more than a bit silly — that Seattle should require years of public debate to determine the fate of a single two-mile stretch of roadway, and still not come to a political consensus, but I’m beginning to believe our infamously wishy-washy “Seattle Way” may be as much a blessing as it is a curse. While the governor, a relative newcomer to the debate, has apparently decided that the only possible replacement for an aging, 1950’s-era elevated freeway is a taller, wider elevated freeway through our downtown waterfront, the years of hemming and hawing and political infighting have afforded the local civic leaders and elected officials most familiar with the project ample time to reconsider the basic assumptions that guide our transportation planning.
Critics of light rail and other mass transit initiatives like to dismiss it as social engineering — Soviet-style central planning at its worst. But road-building is also social engineering, subsidizing driving and incentivizing sprawl. In a growing region like ours, new road capacity can never alleviate traffic, it can only just barely meet our seemingly infinite and unfilled, pent-up demand, while at the same time reducing the public support and political will necessary to build the type of mass transit systems that all major cities depend on.
With climate change threatening to reduce our region’s hydro capacity and rising fuel prices making our auto-centric lifestyle less and less affordable, isn’t it time to learn some lessons from our original namesake? Seattle’s first settlers optimistically dubbed their new city “Alki New York” — New York by-and-by. A century and a half later, thanks to its density and unsurpassed transit system, New York is the most energy efficient city in the nation, while environmentally self-conscious Seattle still struggles to match words with deeds.
This is what Frank Chopp would like to see on your waterfront. He’s calling up architects, soliciting drawings, gathering ideas, all with one purpose: to convince Seattle voters that a brand-new, gigantic freeway on the waterfront can be good urban design. From what I’ve seen, he’s got his work cut out for him. The sketch above is not my creation; its an honest-to-God drawing by WA-DOT of what they call Option 9.
And it’s Frank’s baby. Too bad its an ugly baby.
The structure goes sidewalk to sidewalk, with Alaskan Way (the surface street you see on the waterfront) put underneath the new viaduct. The entire space on the waterfront is swallowed by concrete. From Ivar’s front door, it’s 25 feet to the concrete wall of the viaduct. This is perhaps the most drastic change in Option 9.
Although it isn’t clear in the drawing, the new viaduct will be fitted with sound barriers on both sides. What does this mean? The view cherished by so many drivers will be history. It’s perhaps the most-liked element of the current structure. The “people’s” view while driving on the thing will be replaced with…
…a new park, or at least that’s the plan. I’m a bit skeptical. The late Jane Jacobs, who had a lot to say about cities, was never a big fan of parks. That is, there is a history of cities building parks that become magnets for crime. Seattle has parks that work, and those that don’t. An expansive lid over a freeway that’s only accessible by skybridge does not seem like the kind of park that will be successful over time.
James Vesely wrote this in the Sunday Times:
In the next few days, there’ll be another bear in the woods. Perhaps a new viaduct design will emerge that will be pleasing to the eye, if not to the mayor.
I bet James has the inside track from the pro-rebuild folks (the Seattle Times is staunchly pro-rebuild). I betcha the new viaduct design will look a lot like the drawing above. WA-DOT and the folks in Olympia will do anything to manipulate voters in the days before the election. They said they’ll pull funding for the ‘surface plus transit’, and they said they won’t fund a tunnel no matter what. They want a ‘re-build’, and they’ll do whatever they can to secure it.
How long will Seattle voters allow themselves to be jerked around? How long will Seattle pols be content to be bullied by committee chairs in Olympia? Will Seattle’s waterfront be subjected to Frank Chopp’s hideous Option 9?
A backlash is brewing in Coffee Town.
A new wrinkle in the Viaduct story:
If the viaduct is torn down and replaced with surface streets and transit, the state might contribute just over $1 billion for construction work, said Senate Transportation Chairwoman Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island.
That’s less than half of what the state has pledged for replacing the viaduct with another elevated highway, and could leave the city on the hook for nearly $1 billion to complete a surface-street project, based on some projections.
Amazing. I have no idea where Sen. Haugen gets $1 billion for the ‘surface plus transit’ option as opposed to over $2 billion for the Mistake On The Bay. The money is there for ‘surface’, it’s just a matter of greedy suburban Democrats keeping their paws off Seattle’s infrastructure money appropriating it.
What a cynical, arrogant move by Olympia lawmakers. First they demand we vote on two options (one of which they say they won’t accept) and then they pull the purse strings in a show of power.
“Build what we want, or no money.”
Voters may well approve the Viaduct rebuild, but they may not. In fact, I hope Seattle citizens send a double barreled message to the Olympia by voting “No, and Hell No.”
As I’ve stated before, I tend to agree that a tunnel option for replacing the Alaska Way Viaduct is politically dead… but I can’t help but thinking. The state rejected Mayor Nickels’ recent four-lane hybrid tunnel-lite proposal, arguing that using the shoulders as exit lanes during peak traffic would be unsafe. So… why not just eliminate the exits altogether?
Stick with me here.
We keep hearing that 99 is a vital North/South thruway, and thus the governor insists that she won’t support any option that reduces capacity. Yet if the Viaduct is bounded by a surface street to the South and the four-lane Battery St. tunnel to the North, then obviously much of the traffic must be local.
So instead of talking about a “viaduct” why not consider a “bypass” — a two-mile, four-lane tunnel through the downtown waterfront that eliminates the northbound exits and southbound entrances at Seneca and Western? This way all that vital N/S traffic can continue to flow N/S, while local traffic is diverted to improved surface streets.
Without the need for extra wide shoulders, or the cost of building four ramps, the “hybrid bypass” solution would be even cheaper than Nickels’ tunnel-lite, while ensuring that thru-traffic travels along the waterfront faster than it does today. And local drivers that would have used the existing exits would be served by improved surface streets and transit options, unburdened by the need to accommodate existing N/S thru-traffic.
Yeah, maybe I’m just talking out of my ass. But one of things that has always annoyed me about the current debate is the total lack of imagination. Surface-plus-transit option? That’s just for hippy-dippy whackos. A “gold-plated” tunnel? It’s an unaffordable gift to developers. We’ve had a double-decker freeway running through our waterfront since the earth was created, and if it’s good enough for God then it’s good enough for me, by golly. Or at least, that seems to have been the intellectual process.
Ridicule me, a man with no engineering or traffic expertise, for suggesting a hybrid bypass. But at least I’m trying to think creatively.
Joel Connelly, a Horse’s Ass “Friend of the Blog” and Drinking Liberally attendee, absolutely savages Mayor Nickels’ tunnel in today’s column. It’s not a surprise; Joel’s been pro-rebuild for a long time, but I can’t help thinking the anti-tunnel trash-talking is played-out.
Why? Simply put, the tunnel isn’t going to happen. It’s going to lose at the polls. Plus, we don’t have the money. We have projected money, but we don’t have cash money. And Frank Chopp hates the tunnel, so it’s “game over.” Joel’s column is titled “It’s time for Nickels to bury tunnel,” as if the thing isn’t already politically buried.
I’d like to see columnists from every paper realize that we’re down to two choices. Do you want an elevated rebuild? Yes or no. The incessant hacking at Nickels and his dead tunnel just short circuits the debate. However, Joel Connelly does address the “surface plus transit” option:
The crowning consequences will come if there is no tunnel, no new viaduct and the tear-down, don’t-replace folks win out.
It’ll send thousands of cars toward Pioneer Square, which in the ’70s was the first place downtown rescued from highway culture. (Garages were to replace historic buildings.)
And, if the predicted 12 hours of daily gridlock comes to pass on Interstate 5, thousands more cars will crawl along the freeway, belching greenhouse gases into the air shed of America’s greenest city.
While cars would go through Pioneer Square on a the new Alaskan Way surface boulevard instead of a Viaduct, lots of people would be able to use new transit investments. That’s a good thing for the historic district. As for cars on I-5 and their greenhouse gases, I’m confused. Do cars somehow emit no gases when their cruising at 40 mph on the waterfront? Oh well… I patiently wait for the column in which Joel interviews Cary Moon or Ron Sims, two prominent “surface plus transit” supporters.
Lastly, I can think of no better way to fight the highway culture than to not build highways.
The Iraqi insurgents aren’t the Wehrmacht, they aren’t Johny Reb and they aren’t the Hessians. Geez, it’s like Reichert deliberately picked every non-relevant example from American history and threw it in a blender. Threw in a reference to Osama bin Laden for good measure.
But he’s soooooo moderate!!
FoS is advocating a ‘No-No’ vote on the pointless and stupid (and expensive) vote this March. From a press release:
Friends of Seattle announces that it will recommend to its members that they vote NO on Measure 1 to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel and NO on Measure 2 for an elevated replacement.
[…]
After the state’s two intolerable choices are voted down by the voters, our political leaders, at all levels, must work to find a solution that accounts for the goals and values of a livable and sustainable urban community. Friends of Seattle urges the city to work with the county and state to develop a real solution that:
(1) replaces the Viaduct with a pedestrian-friendly Alaskan Way surface boulevard;
(2) expands bus, vanpool, carpool, and water taxi services;
(3) accommodates the movement of freight;
(4) preserves city-owned land on the waterfront for public use as a park;
(5) minimizes the environmental impacts of major construction on Puget Sound; and
(6) accords with City and County commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
I wasn’t sure Friends of Seattle had the balls to take a stand against the tunnel. I’m glad they did. What is Governor Gregoire and Speaker Chopp going to do when BOTH measures fail?
I can’t wait for election day, when we can send two bad ideas (the gigantic rebuild and the tunnel) to the dustbin of civic history.
New Alaska Way Viaduct at Washington St. (Existing structure superimposed in red.)
I appreciate the value of the Seattle waterfront and recognize that the project design must be mindful of the principles of the community.
— Gov. Chris Gregoire, 2/13/07
Governor Chris Gregoire and several key legislators announced today that the state intends to replace the Alaska Way Viaduct with a new, bigger elevated structure, regardless of the outcome of Seattle’s March 13 advisory vote. Councilman Nick Licata wants to scrap the vote, calling it “pointless,” but to do so at this time under these circumstances would be insulting and defeatist. Instead, I think we should revise the ballot to remove the tunnel alternative, and make this a straight up or down vote on a massive elevated freeway. My sense is that under these circumstances a rebuild would be overwhelmingly rejected by Seattle voters.
Perhaps the state might still have the legal authority to shove this down our throats anyway, but at least they would be fully aware of the political consequences should they try.
The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Come join me for a hoppy Manny’s and some hopped up conversation.
I’m told that Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis will be stopping by tonight. We’ll see if we can get a few drinks in him and then ask him what he really thinks about the state declaring the tunnel dead (and totally pretending that a surface alternative doesn’t even exist.)
Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s eleven Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.
It’s politics as unusual again tonight on “The David Goldstein Show” from 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO. I like to go with the flow, so things could change, but here’s what I have lined up for tonight’s show:
7PM: What’s happening in the other Washington? Ken Vogel, formerly of the TNT and now an investigative reporter The Politicogives us an update from our nation’s capital. What’s the latest scandal? Is Obama for real? Will Republicans ever allow a vote on a resolution opposing escalating the war in Iraq? Ken will fill us in on all the latest news, rumor and gossip.
8PM: Obligatory Viaduct Hour!!! If this is a political talk show in Seattle, then we must be discussing the fate of the Alaska Way Viaduct. Former Gov. Gary Locke joins me to tell us where he stands on (or under) the Viaduct replacement controversy, and share is vision for Seattle and the downtown waterfront. Will Gov. Locke be in lockstep with Gov. Gregoire? Tune in to find out.
9PM: TBA (I’m gonna rant about stuff.)
Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).
I’m out with my co-conspirators today, plotting the nonviolent overthrow of the United States government, so I probably won’t have any time to post, but I’ve got a helluva lineup scheduled for “The David Goldstein Show” tonight from 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO. I like to go with the flow, so things could change, but here’s what I have lined up for tonight’s show:
7PM: Political rant-a-rama: Eli Sanders of The Stranger joins me at the top of the hour for a firsthand report from the mistrial of Lt. Ehren Watada, after which I plan to rant on just about everything that happened in the news this week except for the death of Anna Nicole Smith. Won’t mention it. Not even here.
8PM: Hate your elected officials? Maybe it’s time to change the way we elect them? Political activist and electoral reform advocate Krist Novoselic joins me for the hour to talk about Instant Runoff Voting — also called “ranked choice voting” — and other reforms that could make our democracy more democratic. (Oh… I’m also told that Krist once played in some band or something.) A Republican on the Seattle City Council? That could be the result from one reform I particularly like. Tune in to find out why I’d propose such heresy, and what Krist has to say about it. Krist will also be appearing at Seattle’s Town Hall on Weds. Feb. 21, to talk about electoral reform.
9PM: What’s the matter with Oregon? TJ of the blog Loaded Orygun will fill us in on what’s happening south of the border.
Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).
PROGRAMMING NOTE:
Tune in Sunday night when former Gov. Gary Locke will tell us where he stands on replacing the Viaduct, and unofficial HA D.C. Bureau Chief Ken Vogel calls in with an update on what’s happening in the other Washington.
In yet another sign that the Viaduct Rebuild option is losing public support while the Surface-Plus-Transit option picks up steam, rumors are swirling that the state is prepared to spring a “February Surprise” on voters just weeks before a March 13 special election. According to multiple sources WSDOT will announce next week a new smaller, less expensive Rebuild-Lite proposal, an 11th-hour, 4-lane redesign that shaves tons of concrete and $400 million off the current 6-lane design’s $2.8 billion estimated cost.
Um… I think the governor just blinked.
In dismissing Seattle Mayor Greg Nickel’s Tunnel-Lite, state officials called the proposal untested, unstudied and two-years too late to the table, and yet Rebuild-Lite would borrow its primary innovation, a 4-lane design with wide shoulders that can be used as exit lanes during peak traffic hours. And unfortunately for rebuild proponents, I’m guessing the two Lite options would also share the same reputation as hastily concocted political gambits designed more to move voters than drivers.
The same arguments used to attack Tunnel-Lite can now be used to attack its Rebuild cousin: it is untested, unstudied and two-years too late to the table. And after years of being told that only a six-lane elevated replacement can maintain or increase traffic capacity at an affordable price, voters will now be asked to trust WSDOT that their last-minute 4-lane design can do the same job at a lower cost.
Clearly intended to influence voters in favor of a rebuild, the new, slimmed-down proposal would likely only sow confusion. Rather than being faced with the choice between the uncertain design and cost of a Tunnel-Lite versus an unappealing but unsurprising rebuild, voters will now have absolutely no idea what they’ll be getting (or paying) from either proposal. And I’m not sure what kind of mandate a 4-lane elevated structure can garner from a non-binding advisory measure that describes “a six-lane elevated structure, increased to four lanes in each direction between South King Street and new ramps at Seneca and Columbia Streets.”
Not only would an abrupt switch to a 4-lane proposal undermine the rebuild option’s most compelling feature — familiarity — it would also undermine the primary arguments against considering a Surface-Plus-Transit solution. If a 4-lane tunnel or elevated structure can suddenly maintain the same traffic capacity as the long proposed 6-lane versions, why can’t a 6-lane boulevard? And if there’s plenty of time at this late stage of the game to dramatically re-jigger both the tunnel and elevated designs, why can’t we find the time to properly study a Surface-Plus-Transit solution?
Yeah, at this point the Rebuild-Lite proposal is still just a rumor. But should it come true it will likely upset the current political dynamics of the public debate over how to replace the Viaduct… and not necessarily in the way rebuild proponents intend.
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!