When asked to choose between an elevated highway and a tunnel to replace the city's decrepit waterfront viaduct Seattle voters rejected both options. In spite of this result city and state officials are pushing a plan to replace the viaduct with a tunnel, a project that will cost an estimated $4.2 billion and that was rejected by 70 percent of the voters in the 2007 referendum.
Not only is the tunnel too expensive, it represents an outdated, car-centered view of transportation priorities. But although many think that the plan is set in stone, there is still room for debate -- but only if we speak up. A few resources have recently emerged around the city to facilitate that discussion.
TunnelFacts is a website with the mission of providing the public with information about the tunnel project and tunnel alternatives. As the TunnelFacts team puts it:
We can live without this. We can have a beautiful waterfront without burying a two-mile tailpipe under the city. At a time when we’re laying off teachers and kicking poor people off the state health care rolls, is it really worth $2500 per Seattleite to bury a freeway, just to save yourself five minutes on a trip between West Seattle and Shoreline?
Other local groups are also inviting the public into open discussion of this contentious issue. The Seattle chapter of the American Institute of Architects, for example, is using its site to begin a public dialog about the future of Seattle's waterfront. And the People's Waterfront Coalition presents its alternative vision for a sustainable and environmentally friendly alternative.
What's your vision for the future of Seattle's downtown waterfront? Whether you make your voice heard via one of these websites, or in the comments below, we encourage you to take a proactive approach to envisioning and supporting a plan for the kind of city you want to live in.
