Seattle Times: Yes to A Rebuid, No to the Future

Today we see that the gray, depressing, and illogical opinion-making at the Seattle Times hasn't changed a bit. To the dilemma of what to do about the Viaduct, they apply their same faux cheerleading for regionalism and practicality. To wit:

The Seattle Times' recommendation: Vote no on Advisory Measure No. 1, against the four-lane tunnel; yes on Advisory Measure No. 2, for the elevated roadway.

And then:

The tunnel was a good idea with a lot of appeal. In the end, however, it is too costly and potentially creates as many problems as it solves — all at some mystery cost. Maybe $3.4 billion, maybe a lot higher.

To costly compared to what? Like a new elevated highway doesn't have cost uncertainties? How is the $2.8 billion for an elevated highway any more certain of a cost estimate than the $3.4 billion for a tunnel? To build an elevated structure, WSDOT will be digging in the same soils as they would if they built a tunnel. Not that we're for a tunnel, but we're disappointed by the misleading propositions peddled by the Seattle Times. It gets worse:

Capacity is not an idle concern. After all the work done to revitalize downtown Seattle, it is foolish to clog Interstate 5 and north-south streets of this hourglass-shaped city because we could not reach a reasonable decision on the viaduct.

Really? Capacity for vehicle traffic through a downtown helps a city? Seattle has (partly) recovered some life downtown despite throughways like SR-99 and I-5, not because of them. Look at cities like Detroit, Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston, all of which once had vibrant downtowns, and we see that a city criss-crossed with high-capacity, limited-access freeways tends to have decaying downtowns - not vibrant ones. The Times should have said this: "After all the work done to revitalize downtown Seattle, it is foolish to build another concrete wall between the center city and the waterfront and to blight downtown with the noise and shadowing of an elevated highway structure."

The elevated roadway does the job and does so for a reasonable amount of money, $2.8 billion, in funds already available. It is the most-practical solution because it accommodates the traffic and commerce with safe lane widths and reasonable access, including downtown exits.

The Times is absolutely right if "the job" simply means moving 135,000 cars per day, which a new elevated highway is designed to do. It does not take a rocket scientist to calculate that a $2.8 billion elevated structure would cost less than a $3.4 billion tunnel and is guaranteed to move more cars. But the Times is disingenuous by suggesting "the job" is a simple matter of moving vehicles. The way we solve this problem will determine the type of city we will be for the next 100 years. Will we finally start investing seriously in transit? Will we start giving people real transportation choices? Will we put people first, instead of our cars? Do we value our waterfront at all? Do we care about the impacts on Pioneer Square and downtown? No one here is suggesting that cars be banned from Seattle. Don't believe the hyperbole of people like Phil Talmadge. The issue is whether we start tipping the balance slightly from car traffic to multimodal solutions for moving people around town.

If the surface option can be designed in a way that meets necessary capacity, that will come out in the weeks ahead.

Okay, yes, that's true. But they why does the Times suggest a vote for a rebuild? A vote for a rebuild settles the question. Their contemplation of a surface/transit option is not serious. It is not possible to say vote "YES" for a rebuild in one breath and then in the next, "Hey, let's check out surface/transit too!" We can't have it both ways.

For now, steer clear of the cynics. Don't waste $1 million on an election with an angry vote. Vote "no" on Measure No. 1, against the tunnel, "yes" on Measure No. 2, for the elevated roadway.

How condescending. If voters don't like the choices put forward to them, they have every right to say no and no.

Elsewhere in the Times opinion pages, David Della says to vote for an elevated and Greg Nickels says to vote for a tunnel. Obviously, Councilmember Della's position is unfortunate. At least Mayor Nickels is prepared to move on from the tunnel if the voters say no to it. At least he has Seattle's future in mind.