Replacing Seattle’s viaduct freeway with a package of surface roads and transit is looking more likely.
The City Council did the right thing last Friday by voting to replace the viaduct with a tunnel — and suggesting a package of surface improvements as a fall-back option. They had the option of putting the issue to a public vote, which would have been divisive and simply delayed any solution. Instead they correctly realized that if voters are unhappy they can vote them out of office. But will the people who write angry letters to newspapers remember the decision?
Regardless, the state holds most purse strings for the state-highway project, which could cost $4.8 billion. Gov. Gregoire said Monday that she hasn’t decided if supports a tunnel but doesn’t want gas taxes to pay for it. That leaves tolls as a financing mechanism. Unfortunately the state’s studies show that tolls won’t work because there are many other routes and unused road capacity around downtown.
It’s time to get serious about removing the viaduct before it collapses in the next earthquake. It’s time, more importantly, to start fixing the bottlenecks on I-5 and around downtown that make people think a tunnel or new viaduct is the only sensible option.
Comments
3 responses to “Surface replacement for viaduct more likely”
Thanks for the smart mobility study pointer (http://cnunext.org/files/SmartMobilityReport.pdf)
It made very good points about surface street replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct. If you’re a Seattle tax payer and you care about what will replace the viaduct, you should read that study
The key point is that removing the viaduct DOESN’T need to mean gridlock. There’s plenty of unused capacity if the existing roads are reconfigured. We could have a very effective roads/transit replacement for the billions we’d spend on a tunnel.
How about we put all these theories to the test? We could install additional traffic flow monitors around downtown and then close the viaduct for the month of February. The data thus gained would be invaluable in planning for the construction phase and beyond. It would also settle the debate about the impact of a prolonged closure of the viaduct.