Seattle Group Urges City to Study a ‘No-New-Highway’ Option for Downtown Waterfront
(Note: Following is a shortened version of an Op-Ed by Nancy Peacock and Kevin Fullerton of the Seattle Group's Political Committee. The Seattle P-I has agreed to print it in December or early January. The Group is calling on city officials to explore options for replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct that do not include building a new highway along Elliott Bay.)
In pushing for one of two retrograde options to replace the failing Alaskan Way Viaduct—either a 6-lane tunnel or a rebuilt elevated structure along the Elliott Bay shoreline—Seattle's leaders are banging their heads not only against financial realities but also against urban development trends. Why has our city—purportedly a haven for progressive ideas—bullied itself into a forced decision between two highway options that place 100,000 vehicles per day on its prime waterfront property?
The fact is that inner-city freeways have gone out of style in this country and around the world. It's been decades since a city built or replaced one on valuable shoreline. Instead, cities are tearing down freeways to improve waterfront corridors, restore shorelines, and promote inner-city revitalization. For examples, we need only look at San Francisco, Portland, Milwaukee, Baltimore, even Paris and Seoul. These freeways aren't coming down for mere aesthetics. The fact is: Roads are a rotten investment for local government. Highways that aren't tolled generate no local tax revenues even as they occupy prime developable land that could be contributing to the tax base.
Seattle has an opportunity to join the world's leading cities in establishing a sustainable mobility infrastructure, but not if it mortgages its future to a $4+ billion freeway tunnel. The actual cost of the proposed tunnel and concomitant seawall reconstruction will likely go much higher (cost overruns for urban tunnel projects average 250%). Even though the state gas tax survived Initiative 912, Seattle will still have to come up with at least $3 billion. And while we're pouring all our money into this behemoth, where will we find more to extend light rail, repave I-5, replace the SR 520 bridge, and catch up on a backlog of street maintenance?
To put it bluntly, Seattle has allowed WSDOT to wag it like a dog. The city has never driven the discussion to find solutions for the downtown waterfront. We merely asked how to replace 100% of the viaduct’s current capacity with a single facility at the same location, and reviewed the engineering options. We didn't ask what other improvements $4+ billion could buy for moving people and freight through downtown. Our debate was as predictable as a trip to Midas: Guess what—your car needs new brakes. First off, the proposed tunnel won't reconnect downtown to the waterfront. What's proposed is less a tunnel than a sunken freeway covered by a shallow lid that will in places be propped on stilts. We can't build out onto this covering; even trees and other vegetation will have to be screened for weight. And the tunnel extends barely a mile, with six lanes of traffic reappearing at Dearborn to the south and becoming a deafening aerial viaduct again as it passes alongside Victor Steinbrueck Park to the north, thus separating Pioneer Square and Belltown from the waterfront just like the viaduct already does.
Secondly, the tunnel wouldn’t be finished for at least 10 years, during which time people and freight carriers will have adapted to other routes and modes. New and improved public-transit options will be up and running and with better multi-modal linkages. Market and demographic trends all point to future urban societies drawn to the amenities of compact neighborhoods that support local stores and services, and that are friendly to walking, cycling, and transit use—in other words, that drive less. Nationally, every light-rail referendum placed on the ballot last year passed.
Third, Seattle already has a City Center Access Strategy to improve traffic circulation on the existing downtown grid and to maximize public transit, freight options, and pedestrian/bicycle access. The price tag? About $50 million. Although this plan doesn’t directly address the viaduct issue, it does represent a competing vision for Seattle’s future and one that the Sierra Club strongly supports.
The Sierra Club believes that instead of squandering $4+ billion and 10+ years to replace a decrepit ‘last-century’ shoreline freeway, Seattle deserves transportation choices worthy of a progressive city. Choices that actually reduce congestion through better transit, improved efficiency of existing streets, and commute trip-reduction programs. Choices that anticipate Seattle’s best possible future and that are conducive to its long-term health and prosperity.
Please urge our city leaders to:
1) Develop, test, and refine a "No-Highway” alternative to viaduct replacement that prioritizes the movement of people and freight—not automobiles—through the city center;2) Compare the long-term economic cost/benefits of a downtown shoreline restored and revitalized for people and marine life with the reconstruction of a highway there.
Contact: Seattle Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis (tim.ceis@seattle.gov); City Councilmembers Richard Conlin (richard.conlin@seattle.gov), Peter Steinbrueck (peter.steinbrueck@seattle.gov), and Nick Licata (nick.licata@seattle.gov).
To learn more: Contact Seattle ExCom’s Tim Hesterberg (206/285-1625) and Kevin Fullerton (206-547-2306).
