Today Richard McIver weighs in on the viaduct replacement issue. Summary: we must maintain vehicle capacity. Please. Why don’t we focus on moving people and freight, not cars.

You are one of a number of citizens who contacted me (and presumably my City Council colleagues) last week asking that the Council forego a public advisory vote on replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with either another elevated structure or a cut and cover tunnel, and instead “fully consider a Transit & Streets proposal.” I suspect you know that the Council restated its support for a cut and cover tunnel as our first choice, but also passed legislative language saying that “in the event that the tunnel alternative proves to be infeasible, the City will begin analysis of a new transit and surface streets alternative.”

I voted with the Council majority. I have long believed the cut and cover tunnel is without question the best answer to the Alaskan Way Viaduct issue. Cities all across the nation have been tearing down elevated highways along their waterfronts, permitting those cities to reconnect their center city core with its waterfront. A majority of us on the City Council would like to see the same for Seattle. At the same time, I am obviously well aware of the challenge presented by the high cost of the tunnel option.

Earlier this year, the State Legislature directed the City to either have the City Council again pick a preference, or place an advisory measure on the ballot asking Seattle voters whether they wanted to replace the viaduct with another elevated structure or with a tunnel. (They didn’t give us any other options among those to be presented to voters.) The Legislature also made it clear that they do not intend to provide the already committed $2.2 billion in gas tax revenues to any replacement that does not maintain the capacity of the current structure, which carries some 110,000 vehicles each day.

The viaduct draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), as well as a follow up study done at the direction of the City Council, explored a six lane surface street. Both found such an option could not meet current capacity and would have an overall deleterious impact on traffic.

Many of those who have written to me in support of the no-rebuild proposal of the Peoples Waterfront Coalition and now for the Transit & Streets proposal have expressed support for an alternative that does not maintain capacity, but instead puts a greater emphasis on transit and discourages auto use.

While I voted for the Council resolution, I would expect to oppose any plan that would simply replace the viaduct with a surface street connected to the existing street grid. The Peoples Waterfront Coalition testified before the Council last spring that their vision is to create another First Avenue along the waterfront. I don’t see the perpetual gridlock of First Avenue to be a satisfactory replacement, and certainly not one that could handle even a fraction of the current viaduct capacity.

Should the tunnel prove infeasible, my backup preference would be to consider something like a six lane limited access surface boulevard. While such a replacement would reduce capacity, it would preserve the ability to carry the majority of the current volume (freight and passenger) and at good speed.

I am certainly supportive of an increased emphasis on public transit and other alternative modes to the single occupancy vehicle. I would particularly like to see improvements in transit service to and from Ballard and West Seattle, but we cannot simply will away the current traffic carried by the viaduct. In fact, anticipated growth will ultimately add to the traffic load!

It is important to also remember that the viaduct is State Route 99, which means it is owned by the state. As such, it is Governor Gregoire, not City Hall or Seattle voters who chooses the viaduct replacement (or lack thereof). On the other hand, the funding plan for building a tunnel assumes $800 million would come through a voter-approved Regional Transportation Improvement District (RTID). This measure will most likely appear on the November 2007 ballot. Without its passage, it is hard to see how the tunnel could be built, and perhaps how a replacement elevated structure could be built.

Over the past three or four years I have received hundreds of emails, phone calls, and letters regarding the viaduct replacement. If the communications I’ve received are reflective of public opinion in Seattle, there is no consensus on the best course of action. While I believe it is important that we make a decision and begin to move forward, I suspect the debate will continue for a good many more months.

I appreciate your taking the time to share your perspective.

Richard J. McIver
Seattle City Council