On Tuesday, February 20, the University of Washington Evans School of Public Affairs held a panel discussion covering the differing views on replacing the viaduct. Moderated by Dean Sandra Archibald, with Norman Rice, Mayor Greg Nickels, King County Executive Ron Sims and David Dye of the State of Washington Department of Transportation. Here are some of the points discussed by the speakers.

David Dye
Position: Elevated
Dye presented some of the factors that were taken into account in determining the viaduct replacement options.
Safety - Regardless of the type of structure that is ultimately selected and built, it must meet current safety standards. Doing nothing isn't an option, because the current structure isn't safe.
Fiscal Responsibility - The structure selected must meet fiscal responsibility measures. He felt the tunnel failed this fiscal responsibility test.
Mobility/Capacity - The option selected must meet the mobility/capacity requirements of the region for people, vehicles, and freight.
In addition, he stated that taking the current city architecture and layout into account is important.

Mayor Nickels
Position: Tunnel
Nickels pointed out that this is an opportunity to get rid of a scar on this city. It is our opportunity to make the waterfront a great people place. He feels the less expensive, four-lane tunnel with less capacity than the original six-lane plan, can still provide the mobility the region needs to move people, goods, and freight.

Ron Sims
Position: Surface
Sims reasons that the capacity model historically used in transportation planning is no longer a valid model. There simply isn't enough money to fund capacity planning, and building for capacity creates sprawl. He believes moving towards a mobility-based model, where people have the ability to get where they need to go in a timely manner, is a better model for the future of the region. "Seattle is dense and it's going to get denser. We need to find other ways to commute," Sims said. He also pointed out; the one thing to define a city is it's architecture, and an elevated structure is poor architecture.

Rice mentioned that the car as the mobility option in this area needs to be reduced. There were many references to the March 13 ballot. Your vote sends the message of what kind of city you want Seattle to be in 10, 25, even 50 years.

It is encouraging to see Sims support for the Surface Solution. Seattle is a progressive city, and city that prides itself on environmental responsibility.

If you look at San Francisco's experience taking down the Embarcadero Freeway (A very similar condition to Seattle's Viaduct), you see that people find other ways to move through the city, and in fact traffic is not much different than when the freeway existed.

Let's be optimistic and environmentally responsible and support the Surface Solution.

Posted by: Matt Wittman on February 26, 2007 12:59 PM

While I personally support a surface option, one does need to realize that EHSB 2871, the legislation providing $2B in funds for replacement in 2005, requires that vehicle capacity be maintained through the corridor - which only the original six-lane tunnel or elevated options provide. I don't know that the city actually has the right to reject WSDOT planning for the highway.

Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on March 14, 2007 4:05 PM