The state wants to know if Seattle prefers replacing the earthquake-damaged viaduct (otherwise known as State Route 99) or building a waterfront tunnel. But it seems that the Seattle City Council may punt the question to voters. That would be a mistake.
Any solution needs statewide financing and a tunnel likely costs about $1 billion more than other options. Politicians who don’t see the need to pay for a gold-plated roadway in Seattle oppose it and the governor, who certainly faces a tough reelection battle in 2008, must be sensitive.
A better option is replacing the viaduct with better surface roads and improved transit. The state already has a thorough plan to keep traffic flowing during the several years that any viaduct-replacement project requires. Why not add to those measures permanently? While it’s true that a larger city will need more transportation infrastructure, fixes like a more extensive city streetcar system and a remodeled I-5 could meet the demand.
The bottom line is that the city council needs to make this hard decision. Seattle doesn’t need a costly and divisive election battle — ala the monorail project — leading up to a vote. Making tough decisions for the long-term future of the city is the council’s job.
Comments
2 responses to “Council should take a stand on viaduct”
I’m 100% convinced that replacing highway 99 with surface roads would mean a decrease in the North-South transportation capacity in Seattle. I’m against any proposition that permanently decreases that capacity. If highway 99 is abandoned, (which is the same to me as a surface street replacement) then that transporation capacity needs to be replaced a combination of adding lanes to I-5 as well as big transit investments. The 2 projects need to be tied.
Replacing the capacity of the I-99 viaduct will be expensive no matter what. I just hope that our elected officials don’t end up spending a bunch of taxpayers money with no improvements (or at least status-quo) to our regional transportation. (see recent I-405 “improvements” in Bellevue)
Replacing the viaduct with surface roads absolutely needs to be tied to other improvements. Fact: most of the traffic on the viaduct is going to and from downtown. Much of the through-town traffic could be accommodated on I-5 if it were redesigned. Why not elimiate one of the left-lane exits and restripe for a third lane in each direction? The express lanes could be reconfigured to be two lanes in each direction 24 hours a day. That would alleviate current backups and add capacity, especially for carpools and transit.