viaduct vote
If you're a Seattle voter, you probably already got a ballot in the mail for the pair of votes on what to do with the Alaska Way Viaduct (state highway 99 along the downtown waterfront).
The issues here are quite complex. This debate has been going on for years. The stacked-tunnel option was already discarded once, but was added back to the list for more detailed studies. Other options have been killed off from most perspectives, but refuse to die entirely. Numerous politicians seem to have the attitude of, "Of course I'm right, everyone should just agree with me so we can move on." I'm biased; I have an opinion of which politicians are behaving worse than others, and I also use the viaduct as a part of my daily commute. However, I'm going to try to present some unbiased background before presenting both my opinion and some resources to look up more stuff on your own.
My summary of events since 2004: In 2004, the number of alternatives under review were narrowed down from around six to two. Seattle Mayor Nickels weighed in very strongly in favor of the six-lane stacked tunnel. It has always been the most expensive option, but at that time, it seemed plausible to find funding. Construction costs have jumped a lot in the past few years; construction labor has gotten a lot more expensive nationwide as both the improved economy and the rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina have both increased demand. WSDOT reevaluated cost estimates for all of their upcoming projects, including the Alaska Way project options that hadn't been officially discarded. This significantly increased costs for not just this project, but also other key area projects like the 520 bridge replacement. In turn, nearly everyone at the state level to realize that the stacked tunnel option simply couldn't be funded, but the city stuck to the hope of a tunnel, to open up the waterfront. Washington State Governor Gregoire told Seattle that if they wanted to proceed with that option, they had to figure out funding for the added cost of the tunnel option above replacing the viaduct and put the tunnel idea up for a vote with the funding specified. Otherwise, she'd direct WSDOT to proceed with the other option still officially up for consideration, replacing the viaduct with a new viaduct, and she'd do it entirely with state funding.
That leads us to our current vote. Seattle couldn't figure out how to fund a stacked tunnel, so instead they went back to one of the other options, discarded years ago, of smaller side-by-side tunnels, totaling either four or six lanes, depending on how you count. This is the option on the ballot. Note that this is not the same option that was called the "surface-tunnel hybrid" option a few years back when WSDOT was still actively studying around six options. The old surface-tunnel option eliminated the Elliott/Western ramps, shunting that traffic to surface streets. Seattle's current proposal retains those ramps, but makes other surface improvements to compensate for the loss of capacity from fewer lanes.
That's my attempt at unbiased background. I'll add some more background that it's not clear what the unbiased viewpoint really is, due to the level of political spin going on, and then jump into my opinions.
WSDOT worked with the city in a week-long mad dash to explore this new option more thoroughly. After that week was over, the city declared this new option viable and put it on the ballot instead of the stacked tunnel option, and also drew up the ballot where we vote for each option separately; in parallel, WSDOT did a second-pass analysis of this new option and came to the conclusion that it simply wasn't workable, causing Gregoire to say that this new option wouldn't get built regardless of the vote outcome.
Meanwhile, there are groups of people trying to pursue a surface-only option as well as fans of refurbishing the existing viaduct (something that WSDOT studies have rejected multiple times and would leave us saddled with our current safety issues with some of the on/off-ramps). The surface-only folks think we should vote no to both, as do some other groups; if that's the result, no one will know what it really means.
So, what's my take? The City of Seattle screwed up. They held out for a design that couldn't possibly get funded, and then when it finally dawned on them that there was little or no hope of succeeding with it, scrambled to rush a design that had had a couple weeks of analysis and scrutiny to stand side by side with an option that has had a couple of years of the same level of review. They drew up a confusing ballot; if the outcome is yes for both or no for both, does that mean we have to keep debating this?
Why do I think the city's new surface-tunnel plan is flawed? The current viaduct was built in the 1950's. Since then, across the US, highway safety standards have been raised considerably. The official WSDOT plans upgrade the safety standards throughout the corridor; the new construction will be largely consistent with current federal highway safety standards, and the Battery St. Tunnel will get safety upgrades while the corridor is closed for construction anyways. The city's surface-tunnel plan omits those improvements to cut costs. The city's plan also calls for the right part of the roadway to be a regular lane with incredibly narrow shoulders during commute hours and a non-lane at other times. WSDOT's plans include full right-hand shoulders for disabled & emergency vehicles; for at least the tunnel option, they also include enough of a left-hand shoulder to ensure reasonable sight lines around curves. Driving through the current Battery St. Tunnel, particularly northbound near the Western on-ramp, as well as on the Aurora Ave. bridge, I've gained a healthy appreciation for such things.
Also, the "surface" portion of the city's plans, in my opinion, should be decoupled from the Alaska Way project. They're interesting capacity improvements, but they should be discussed in the context of whether we as a community are willing to shift a significant part of our future commute-time capacity from roads & cars to transit and other such things. It's something I'd like to see discussed and debated over the next few years, not rushed in as a side component of this project. Some of it is likely to happen anyways by default; 3rd Ave will probably remain transit only while Alaska Way is under construction. Once that's done, it'll have been transit only for so long that it'll probably be easy to keep it that way if there's sufficient bus service to warrant it.
Resources:
The issues here are quite complex. This debate has been going on for years. The stacked-tunnel option was already discarded once, but was added back to the list for more detailed studies. Other options have been killed off from most perspectives, but refuse to die entirely. Numerous politicians seem to have the attitude of, "Of course I'm right, everyone should just agree with me so we can move on." I'm biased; I have an opinion of which politicians are behaving worse than others, and I also use the viaduct as a part of my daily commute. However, I'm going to try to present some unbiased background before presenting both my opinion and some resources to look up more stuff on your own.
My summary of events since 2004: In 2004, the number of alternatives under review were narrowed down from around six to two. Seattle Mayor Nickels weighed in very strongly in favor of the six-lane stacked tunnel. It has always been the most expensive option, but at that time, it seemed plausible to find funding. Construction costs have jumped a lot in the past few years; construction labor has gotten a lot more expensive nationwide as both the improved economy and the rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina have both increased demand. WSDOT reevaluated cost estimates for all of their upcoming projects, including the Alaska Way project options that hadn't been officially discarded. This significantly increased costs for not just this project, but also other key area projects like the 520 bridge replacement. In turn, nearly everyone at the state level to realize that the stacked tunnel option simply couldn't be funded, but the city stuck to the hope of a tunnel, to open up the waterfront. Washington State Governor Gregoire told Seattle that if they wanted to proceed with that option, they had to figure out funding for the added cost of the tunnel option above replacing the viaduct and put the tunnel idea up for a vote with the funding specified. Otherwise, she'd direct WSDOT to proceed with the other option still officially up for consideration, replacing the viaduct with a new viaduct, and she'd do it entirely with state funding.
That leads us to our current vote. Seattle couldn't figure out how to fund a stacked tunnel, so instead they went back to one of the other options, discarded years ago, of smaller side-by-side tunnels, totaling either four or six lanes, depending on how you count. This is the option on the ballot. Note that this is not the same option that was called the "surface-tunnel hybrid" option a few years back when WSDOT was still actively studying around six options. The old surface-tunnel option eliminated the Elliott/Western ramps, shunting that traffic to surface streets. Seattle's current proposal retains those ramps, but makes other surface improvements to compensate for the loss of capacity from fewer lanes.
That's my attempt at unbiased background. I'll add some more background that it's not clear what the unbiased viewpoint really is, due to the level of political spin going on, and then jump into my opinions.
WSDOT worked with the city in a week-long mad dash to explore this new option more thoroughly. After that week was over, the city declared this new option viable and put it on the ballot instead of the stacked tunnel option, and also drew up the ballot where we vote for each option separately; in parallel, WSDOT did a second-pass analysis of this new option and came to the conclusion that it simply wasn't workable, causing Gregoire to say that this new option wouldn't get built regardless of the vote outcome.
Meanwhile, there are groups of people trying to pursue a surface-only option as well as fans of refurbishing the existing viaduct (something that WSDOT studies have rejected multiple times and would leave us saddled with our current safety issues with some of the on/off-ramps). The surface-only folks think we should vote no to both, as do some other groups; if that's the result, no one will know what it really means.
So, what's my take? The City of Seattle screwed up. They held out for a design that couldn't possibly get funded, and then when it finally dawned on them that there was little or no hope of succeeding with it, scrambled to rush a design that had had a couple weeks of analysis and scrutiny to stand side by side with an option that has had a couple of years of the same level of review. They drew up a confusing ballot; if the outcome is yes for both or no for both, does that mean we have to keep debating this?
Why do I think the city's new surface-tunnel plan is flawed? The current viaduct was built in the 1950's. Since then, across the US, highway safety standards have been raised considerably. The official WSDOT plans upgrade the safety standards throughout the corridor; the new construction will be largely consistent with current federal highway safety standards, and the Battery St. Tunnel will get safety upgrades while the corridor is closed for construction anyways. The city's surface-tunnel plan omits those improvements to cut costs. The city's plan also calls for the right part of the roadway to be a regular lane with incredibly narrow shoulders during commute hours and a non-lane at other times. WSDOT's plans include full right-hand shoulders for disabled & emergency vehicles; for at least the tunnel option, they also include enough of a left-hand shoulder to ensure reasonable sight lines around curves. Driving through the current Battery St. Tunnel, particularly northbound near the Western on-ramp, as well as on the Aurora Ave. bridge, I've gained a healthy appreciation for such things.
Also, the "surface" portion of the city's plans, in my opinion, should be decoupled from the Alaska Way project. They're interesting capacity improvements, but they should be discussed in the context of whether we as a community are willing to shift a significant part of our future commute-time capacity from roads & cars to transit and other such things. It's something I'd like to see discussed and debated over the next few years, not rushed in as a side component of this project. Some of it is likely to happen anyways by default; 3rd Ave will probably remain transit only while Alaska Way is under construction. Once that's done, it'll have been transit only for so long that it'll probably be easy to keep it that way if there's sufficient bus service to warrant it.
Resources:
- The Seattle Times endorses a new viaduct. Guest opinions: concurring, and Seattle's Mayor disagrees. They discuss the underlying politics & personalities (but I can't vouch for it's accuracy).
- More Seattle Times: Q&A with Mayor Nickels (pro-tunnel), City Council President Licata (pro-viaduct), and City Councilman Steinbrueck (against both, pro-surface?; still taking questions, answers not posted)
- More editorials: P-I. Endorsements from alternative papers were harder to track down; here are some articles: The Stranger, and the Seattle Weekly
- Official pages: City of Seattle, WSDOT