Advisory Measures

In the aftermath of Seattle’s Monorail disastrophy, the public has returned is focus to the looming problem of the deteriorating Alaskan Way Viaduct. The double-decker elevated concrete structure separates downtown from picturesque waterfront of Elliot Bay, and experts say that there is a 1-in-20 chance that an earthquake will cause a catastrophic failure of the viaduct in the next 10 years.

A political fight ensued, with the city proposing replacing the viaduct with a tunnel, and the state declaring it would only pay for a replacement elevated structure.

After realizing the price tag of a large tunnel (one that could handle the same amount of traffic as the viaduct) would doom the proposal before it could even be fully studied, the city decided on a smaller tunnel option combined with surface road and transit improvements to pick up the rest of the load.

So a special election has been called for, and on March 13th Seattle residents will advise the city and state on what they prefer: a new elevated structure, or the so-called surface/tunnel hybrid. These measures are not binding, but will continue to shape the political debate.

The way in which the measures have been written, however, has already changed the discussion. There are two measures: 1) do you prefer the Surface/Tunnel Hybrid Alternative, and 2) do you prefer the Elevated Structure Alternative. This leads to four possible outcomes of the election.

This has allowed Seattlites to resurrect a third plan that had been declared politically dead last year: the surface/transit option, or, as I like to call it, the “tear the damn thing down and be done with it” option.

After a lot of consideration, I have decided to support this third option and will vote “no-no” on these measures.

Some things to keep in mind:

The viaduct is not a vital artery to the heart of the city.

The viaduct provides a good route for traffic to pass through downtown from the south side of the city to the north side, and vice versa. Its limited downtown exits do not provide significant improvements of access to and from downtown. Therefore, the short-term health of downtown would not be seriously affected by tearing down the viaduct.

Meanwhile, it has been well documented that a lot of the issues faced in larger inner-cities can be avoided by keeping the city’s revenue base from an easy commute to the suburbs. San Francisco, Portland, Milwaukee, and Denver have all torn down elevated freeways to reinvigorate their cities… and all with positive effects.

The long term affect of losing the viaduct cannot be predicted now.

WSDOT’s website says: “Extreme congestion on I-5 and in the downtown city grid following the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake closures made it clear [that the viaduct] is a critical route that needs replacing.”

This is misleading because short-term road closures always cause problems that eventually subside as people find new ways around it, adjust their lifestyles, and factor their commute into many of the major decisions they make.

Seattle’s traffic problems are serious. But the unprecedented population increases and development in the areas around downtown means that the region is starting to adjust to these realities. The first light rail line of the area is scheduled to open in just two years. The “Transit Now” initiative, expanding public transit 15 to 20 percent over the next 10 years, was overwhelmingly passed by county voters last November.

We need to let these significant changes evolve before we try to predict the catastrophe that will come by tearing down the viaduct. If it does turn out that we do need to do something, we can make the right decision on what to do with the three billion dollars earmarked for this project.

Tearing down the viaduct pays for itself.

At an estimated $800 million, this option is far cheaper than the $2.8 billion elevated structure or the $3.4 billion tunnel. Meanwhile, a large corridor, the length of all of downtown, is open for strategic redevelopment.

The Olympic Sculpture Park, a new nine-acre waterfront park opened a few weeks ago by the Seattle Art Museum, is a few blocks north of where the viaduct ends. It has been incredibly successful and has enjoyed both critical and public acclaim since it opened. Opening up more of the waterfront will allow both residents and visitors to enjoy the beauty of the city in a place that is currently reserved for tourists.

As the population of downtown continues to grow, so does the revenue generated from it. A major improvement to the livability of downtown would generate much more cash than a toll-less viaduct or tunnel.

It is also important to remember that we pay for these large projects through regressive taxes. There is no income tax in this state, and most of the money for this project comes from a substantial gas tax increase. Though it seems progressive to increase the price of gasoline in an effort to lower demand for fossil fuels, it is important to remember that the working poor pays a much higher percentage of their income for this tax than the wealthy.

Vote No and No.

Anyway, I know that none of this constitutes a decisive argument that we will not have any problems if we tear down the viaduct and just make some improvements to surface roads and public transit. But it has convinced me that we don’t know that there will be problems with it. Other cities have done it under surprisingly similar circumstances and it has worked out.

There are enough reasons to try it, and if the sky does in fact fall down because of it, we can decide later to build a seismically sound elevated structure to hold it up.