|
|
|
 |
|
Home / Washington Business - February 2006 / Rebuilding the Viaduct |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Rebuilding the Viaduct |
|
|
|
Written On: February 2006 |
|
|
|
Written By: by Daniel Brunell |
|
|
|
Seattle's on its Own for Tunnel Money
The Nisqually Earthquake severely damaged the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Currently, the 52-year-old, two-tier road is a patchwork of repairs by the Washington State Department of Transportation, repairs which have been ongoing since the magnitude 6.8 tremor struck on Feb. 28, 2001.
Since the earthquake, replacing the viaduct has become an urgent priority for the City of Seattle as well as the State of Washington.
More than 100,000 vehicles — one quarter of all north-south traffic — use the viaduct every day. Billions of dollars in goods reach the Port of Seattle, downtown Seattle and Sea-Tac Airport via the viaduct. Businesses from across the state rely on the viaduct to bring goods to market.
The extreme congestion on I-5 and downtown following the earthquake highlights how critical this infrastructure is. Without the viaduct, Washington’s economy suffers.
The viaduct, though, is only part of the problem. The 71-year-old waterfront seawall has suffered significant damage from a massive infestation by gribbles, which are wood-chewing crustaceans.
A 2002 inspection showed the gribbles infestation has eaten the wooden seawall to the point of collapse. The seawall keeps the fill dirt under the waterfront from penetrating Pioneer Square and secures the viaduct itself. Without the seawall, the whole of downtown built on fill is in trouble.
In 2005, the Washington Legislature passed the transportation funding package that provides approximately $2 billion to replace the viaduct and seawall. In addition, the 2003 "Nickel" Transportation package supplies $177 million. The federal government has kicked in $231 million, and $8 million more is available from other sources. As of now the project has almost $2.4 billion in dedicated funding.
In the year since the 9.5 cent gas tax increase passed and now survived an initiative challenge (I-912), the state officials have moved quickly on the viaduct. There are two finalized designs. One replaces the viaduct with another double-deck highway. The other is the cut-and-cover tunnel.
The replacement option is appealing because of its low cost and shorter construction time — and almost all of the approximately $2.8 billion needed is in place.
Many in Seattle, though, look beyond the road and see this as a chance to redevelop the waterfront.
Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, the city council and the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce support the tunnel option. This six-lane tunnel in the mold of Boston's "Big Dig" would replace both the viaduct and the seawall at the same time.
Supporters claim that the tunnel would dramatically improve the aesthetic appeal of the waterfront, developing it into a more tourist-friendly place. It would tie downtown Seattle directly to the waterfront, with open spaces for arts, entertainment and commerce. Traffic capacity would not be compromised and the design would allow for wide shoulders, which the current viaduct lacks. But the tunnel has several powerful critics.
"The tunnel option is not the best one for several reasons," said Wes Uhlman, of Wes Uhlman and Associates. Uhlman served as mayor of Seattle from 1969 to 1977, served in the Legislature and chaired AWB’s Board of Directors.
"From a cost-benefit view, the huge additional cost cannot be justified. Also, the proposed methods to pay for the $1.5 billion shortfall would place an onerous burden on those Seattle residents least able to pay. For example, a portion is proposed by the mayor through increased water bills to be paid by all Seattle residents. Is it fair to force Seattle residents to pay a regressive tax such as this for a more aesthetically attractive waterfront, which most Seattleites neither want nor can afford?"
Critics also charge that the tunnel option will not be safe for trucks carrying flammable and hazardous materials. WSDOT says that flammable and hazardous materials constitute only 2 percent of all freight traffic in the corridor and cause only minimal delays as these trucks navigate surface streets.
But the biggest thing holding back the tunnel is money. Several methods for raising the estimated extra $1.5 billion needed have been proposed. Along with the increased utility fees, a local property tax assessment and tolls are options championed by tunnel proponents.
As Seattle scrambles for the money and addresses tunnel concerns, some suggest we use the state’s budget surplus to fund the tunnel. Others disagree.
"We made it clear last year that we would put $2 billion in for the viaduct to be replaced," said Rep. Beverly Woods, R-Poulsbo, ranking minority member on the House Transportation Committee. "We have made it clear to the people of Seattle that we will hold them to that."
"The Legislature has stepped up in good faith. It’s time for Seattle to step up to the plate," said Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, chair of the Senate Transportation Committee. "There is a real push from the Legislature and the governor's office to get this project started at the soonest possible moment."
The race to replace the viaduct is not only a safety concern but a political football. A growing movement in Seattle believes the viaduct should be torn down and not replaced.
Environmental organizations and civic groups have taken advantage of the delays to start a grassroots campaign with that in mind. They claim that other cities have torn down highways with some degree of success. However, these groups fail to note the cities that have done this already have centralized populations, multiple highway alternatives and a well-integrated mass transit system, all of which Seattle lacks.
According to the WSDOT, this option won't be considered and the viaduct project will move forward — as soon as Seattle decides what to do next.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
