With the debate over replacing the Alaskan Way viaduct crumbling into dysfunction faster than the structure itself, a “surface street and transit” option is reported by Seattle media to be gaining momentum.
With any option for a tunnel along the Seattle waterfront apparently dead, those opposed to a new elevated highway see the surface option as the only politically viable alternative.
But unless they can show the state that such a plan won’t add to traffic gridlock on already congested I-5, and show it soon, legislative leaders in Olympia should shoot it down as inadequate.
This fight has already gone on too long. It’s a major obstruction in the pipeline of state highway projects, blocking progress on a regional transportation system that’s already years behind. The longer we go without a decision, the more the eventual cost goes up and the less likely it becomes that frustrated voters will approve a huge package of regional road and transit improvements in November.
David Dye, a top administrator in the state Department of Transportation, expressed skepticism over the surface idea Monday, pointing out that even a six-lane boulevard would send thousands of vehicles from Highway 99 to I-5, keeping the latter congested for 10 to 12 hours a day. Seattle and King County officials dispute that, but can’t prove otherwise. And it’s hard to reconcile the addition of a crowded surface highway along Alaskan Way with the viaduct opponents’ goal of reconnecting downtown Seattle with the waterfront.
From a regional standpoint, capacity is critical. Population projections mean that even increased transit won’t be enough to offset future highway congestion. Turning I-5 through Seattle into an all-day chokepoint could strangle the regional economy, and would make the workday longer for every commuter who lives in Snohomish County and works in King County.
Gov. Chris Gregoire reiterated Monday that a new, $2.8 billion viaduct is the only viable alternative because it’s the only one that meets her three criteria: safety, fiscal responsibility and capacity. “I can’t see just tearing (the viaduct) down and letting it go and creating a parking lot on I-5,” she said. “I think the citizens would be appalled.”
Of course they would.
Unless lawmakers are convinced that a surface option can carry as many people and as much freight through the corridor as efficiently as a new viaduct, they must force the latter. If Seattle threatens legal action, fine. Let the courts decide the matter, but quickly. Our growing region needs traffic solutions. It’s had enough political gridlock.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
