Click for details on my plan for a practical surface/transit option

Backgound Information

SR99 (state route 99) is the Washington State portion of the highway formerly known as U.S. 99, which was a major north-south highway through California, Oregon, and Washington. It ran from the Mexican border at San Ysidro, California, to the Canadian border at Blaine, Washington.

SR99 passes through Seattle, and a portion of it is on an two-level elevated structure that parallels a street named Alaskan Way along the Seattle waterfront. The structure is called the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

The Viaduct was built sometime around 1960 and it is now showing the effects of age, with broken-off chunks of concrete, exposed rebar, and some settling due to an earthquake. It is still deemed safe, but most experts believe it would be in danger of collapse in the event of another major earthquake.

Proposed Solutions

The Washington State Department of Transportation (DOT) wants to replace the Viaduct. It has narrowed its choices to two alternatives — a new viaduct that would be stronger, safer, and have higher capacity; or a tunnel along the waterfront.

Other groups have other ideas, such as tear down the viaduct and replace it with a surface boulevard, tear down the viaduct and don’t replace it with anything, a bridge offshore, and reinforcement and improvement of the existing viaduct.

Of course there is a great deal of ongoing controversy over what would be the best alternative!

Many people living and working downtown want the Viaduct torn down to improve the view and open up the waterfront, as part of a greater redevelopment and revitalization of the waterfront. Other people like the view from the Viaduct while driving on it. Others are concerned about traffic problems if the viaduct is torn down, and during construction of some of the alternatives. Still others are concerned about the high costs of some of the alternatives. And there are people who are concerned that while everybody else is trying to decide on the best alternative, and earthquake will hit and bring down the Viaduct.

A separate project is to rebuild the old seawall along the waterfront, because there is serious damage to the old one. The tunnel alternative could include a seawall as one side of the tunnel.

Arguments For and Against Each Alternative

REPLACE THE VIADUCT WITH A NEW ONE — Would cost around $3 billion dollars. The new viaduct would be built to modern standards and would be highly resistant to earthquake damage. This plan is opposed by those who want the waterfront opened up and improved and by those opposed to a high=cost project.

REPLACE THE VIADUCT WITH A TUNNEL — This plan, which would cost about $4 billion, is favored by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and many others that favor an open waterfront. It is opposed by some due to high cost, and others fear that in an earthquake the wall of the tunnel could crack open and flood the tunnel and all the traffic currently in it.

REPLACE THE VIADUCT WITH A SURFACE BOULEVARD — Favored by some who want a cheaper alternative and a fairly open waterfront. Opposed by many who want an open waterfront without a major boulevard.

REPLACE THE VIADUCT WITH A BRIDGE OFFSHORE — A few people have come up with ideas for a long bridge, probably a suspension or cable stayed bridge, that would be offshore from the waterfront and would connect areas north and south of the Downtown area. This idea is opposed by many people who fear that the plan would be very expensive, and that it would ruin the view looking out over the water.

TEAR DOWN THE VIADUCT AND DON’T REPLACE IT WITH ANYTHING — Favored by many people that want an open waterfront, and others that want to shift more people from driving to using transit to improve the environment and reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Opponents say that this would thrown many more cars onto Interstate 5 and Downtown streets, greatly increasing already bad traffic congestion.

REPAIR THE EXISTING VIADUCT — Some people have come up with plans to use braces and springs to strengthen the existing Viaduct and absorb stress during an earthquake. One cost estimate is $800 million, one of the lowest-cost alternatives. Opposed by people who want to demolish the Viaduct in order to open up the waterfront and others who say this is only a temporary solution.

My Opinions

The advisory ballot issue in the election of 13 March 2007 has two measures — 1) Do you prefer the four-lane tunnel? and 2) Do you prefer the elevated structure? For both measures there is a choice of "Yes" or "No."

In my opinion, the tunnel alternative costs too much money, along with other problems common to both alternatives I will list following the next paragraph.

In my opinion, the new elevated structure option costs too much money and will commit the city to perhaps 100 more years of having the massive structure looming over the waterfront, in addition to other problems common to both alternatives that I will discuss next.

Problems that are common to both alternatives include serious disruptions to business and tourism along the waterfront during years of construction, serious traffic congestion while the viaduct is closed during construction, failure to include mass transit improvements, and commitment to an expensive, difficult-to-modify structure far into the future when most likely it won’t be needed for too long because of increasing costs and inconvenience of driving.

My opinion is that taking everything into account, the best choice would be to:

1. Build a medium-capacity surface boulevard along the waterfront for through traffic only
2. Make improvements in capacity and speed on 1st Ave., 4th Ave. S., and certain streets north of Downtown in order to speed the flow of traffic into the Downtown area
3. Make major improvements to I-5 through the Downtown area in order to not only handle increased load from traffic diverted from the viaduct, but also to better handle existing traffic
4. Build a rapid mass transit line from Downtown to West Seattle and also from Downtown to Ballard
5. Once those projects reach a point where the viaduct is no longer needed, demolish the viaduct and improve the waterfront

As for the March election, I urge everyone to vote "No" on both alternatives, forcing our leaders to take a closer and serious look at the surface plus transit option.

Click for details on my plan