Seattle's Viaduct Election

Seattle's viaduct replacement election is coming up this Tuesday. I voted no and hell no, though I'm not sure that was entirely correct. The tunnel is definitely a bad idea. First, tunnels in general are expensive and often overrun the cost. Second, the way the mayor proposes to pay for the tunnel involves residents between Spokane St. and Denny. That's just too narrow. The people who are going to benefit most are the people in West Seattle and in Ballard. I'd be much less opposed to the tunnel if:

1. Finance the tunnel 100% by selling the land on top to developers. We all know that's what will happen eventually anyway, so at least make them pay for it. The land underneath the current viaduct is some of the most potentially expensive land in Seattle. Sell it.

2. Ditch the stupid "is-it-a-shoulder?" shoulders. It's either a lane, an exit ramp, or a shoulder. It shouldn't be all three at different times. That's just going to be a mess. We need a 6 lane tunnel, not a 4 lane tunnel. A four lane tunnel is going to be just like the 520 bridge is. Those of you who commute across it feel my pain.

So, like I said, definitely no on the tunnel. The viaduct proposed is going to be bigger than the existing viaduct. I like the existing one just fine. It has great views, but I worry those might go away if the new tunnel requires solid concrete barriers unlike the current visually light-weight barriers. The anti-viaduct campaign has scared me a little about the size (good for you guys!) but I really don't like the surface street option either.

Here's what wrong with the surface street option:














How is the surface street option any better than the proposed new viaduct, shown below?





It isn't. Sure, there are pretty flowers and all, but a 6-lane road isn't going to make things nice for pedestrians. It's still noisy and unpleasant to walk around. And it will be unpleasant to drive on due to the traffic lights. Maybe make it a surface highway, with a number of sky bridges for pedestrians to cross overhead?

Another problem is that the state is guaranteeing 2.8 billion dollars in funding for a new viaduct. If we get the same amount of money for public transportation if we don't build anything, then I'm all for it. But the surface street option means we'll see maybe $120 million, and Seattle will get screwed over so the state can send our viaduct money elsewhere. I hear Renton needs a new basketball arena, and Kitsap needs a new racetrack.

I love light rail. Let's use the $2.8 billion for more light rail, sooner. Or, here's a wild idea: replace the viaduct with one word: monorail.

Ultimately, I have some predictions about the results of the election:

1. The tunnel will have less support than the viaduct.
2. The viaduct and tunnel will have less than 50% support.
3. The mayor is going to ignore the election results, unless both options have less than 25% support.
4. If the mayor tries to build a tunnel, he won't get the funding.
5. If the governor tries to build a viaduct, she'll get wrapped up in red tape when the city refuses to issue permits.
6. The mayor will not be elected again.
7. The governor will struggle to get re-elected.