Or maybe that should be Peter “Hell No I’m Not Mayor Gridlock’s Lackey” Steinbrueck? You decide. Summary: The state gave us a multiple choice test with only two choices. I circled “A. Tunnel”. However, had this been an essay test I would have actually given an intelligent answer.

<!– This will be the final installment of On the Viaduct Replacement since the other city council members obviously hate me and refuse to return my emails. Jean? Rick? Dave? I thought we were friends. –>

Thank you for writing to me about the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement project. I know there are strongly held and widely differing opinions as to how the State should proceed with replacing the aging and unsafe Viaduct. This is one of the toughest and most important decisions to come before us as a community in a generation. It is crucial that we make the right choice for a more sustainable future for Seattle and the region.

The Washington State Legislature mandated that we in Seattle make a choice between only two, limited options-an elevated expressway (estimated to be about 50% larger than the current Viaduct) or a six-lane tunnel. They also told us that, regardless of which option is decided on, we must maintain capacity for 130,000 vehicles in the State Route 99 corridor.

Last week, the Seattle City Council took four key legislative actions, we:

1. Stated the city’s preference for a tunnel as the Preferred Alternative;

2. Provided a third Surface-and-Transit option as a back-up should the tunnel prove infeasible;

3. Declared the aerial expressway option as contrary to our city’s Comprehensive Plan and other important land use regulations; and

4. Directed the mayor to negotiate with the state to identify who will pay for any funding shortfall for replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Project.

With some misgivings I supported the tunnel option because it balances the state’s requirement for maintaining vehicle capacity with advancing our shared community vision for re-connecting the city with the central waterfront. Even so, my first preference is for developing a less costly Surface and Transit alternative that will improve mobility for people, while reducing auto-dependency.

Both the tunnel and aerial expressway options do nothing to improve the environment, since neither reduces our auto-dependency or greenhouse gas emissions. Both options would also be highly disruptive, if not destructive, to area businesses during are the estimated eight to ten year construction period. In addition, the aerial expressway option would further overshadow the surface streets, block views, create more noise and add to blighted conditions that exist there today from the existing viaduct.

Our region is going to continue to grow rapidly in population in the years to come. Any solution for replacing the Viaduct must enhance vital north-south transportation mobility for trucks and other commercial traffic traveling through the city and for residents of West Seattle, Ballard and other communities that rely on the SR-99 corridor. Clearly, there are still many uncertainties with the State’s replacement options, and every day of delay it becomes more costly. The matter is now before Governor Gregoire who, along with the State Legislature, will make the final determination on the preferred option before the end of the year.

The sustainable solution to replacing the viaduct in the 21st century will not be a new and bigger 1940′s style, double-decker overhead freeway, but one that is less polluting and environmentally sound; emphasizes multiple modes of travel, mobility and moving people (not just more cars).

My commitment is to ensure a viable transportation corridor and to work to reclaim the central waterfront for civic life, economic revitalization, and public enjoyment.

As always, I appreciate hearing from you. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

Sincerely,
Peter Steinbrueck, FAIA