City WSDOT Ignores Economic, Environmental Benefits of Viaduct Teardown
As Nancy Drew reported, the Congress for the New Urbanism and Center for Neighborhood Technology released a study last week finding that the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), in studying alternatives for replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct, had overestimated downtown traffic projections, overstated the extent to which the viaduct is needed for freight mobility, and mischaracterized the car capacity of downtown streets, among other flaws. In a few weeks, the groups will release part 2 of their report, which addresses the economic impacts of the three viaduct-replacement alternatives. (The three choices are: Replace the viaduct with another aerial structure; replace it with an aerial structure and cut-and-cover tunnel; or tear it down and don’t replace it, supplementing the lost capacity by adding transit and re-routing viaduct trips through the street grid.) In a letter to Mayor Nickels, the presidents of the two organizations, John Norquist and Scott Bernstein, note that WSDOT’s analysis “did not analyze the potential benefits of more balanced traffic distribution” downtown and limited its economic considerations “solely to near term availability” of funds.
In other cities that have torn down waterfront freeways and not replaced them, Norquist and Bernstein write, the new waterfront boulevards “sparked the areas revitalization.” In Milwaukee, for example, as property values citywide went up 18 percent, property values on the reclaimed waterfront increased an astonishing 155%.
Norquist and Bernstein also criticize WSDOT and the city’s presumption that people won’t change their auto dependent habits if given real alternatives. Between 2000 and 2030, they note, the region’s residents will spend $1 trillion on out-of-pocket auto-related expenses: $10,000 per household per year. “If making the most of your existing assets… can save as much as 30 percent of that amount per household, then moving toward the direction of increasing traffic flow and inducing automobile use and dependence is an expensive mistake.” Moreover, “accomodating increased traffic and reducing [greenhouse-gas] emissions by 80 percent,” the city’s stated goal, “are not compatible goals.”
The letter concludes:
We ask that you not plan for the Viaduct replacement in isolation from the other commitments in which you are engaged, such as greenhouse gas reduction and increasing transit. We believe there are better choices to be made.
The city council votes Friday on what viaduct replacement options it will send to the ballot in November. At the moment, it appears the council plans to ignore the progressive groups’ advice, giving voters only two options: the ugly aerial rebuild and the costly, environmentally short-sighted tunnel.
Holding an advisory vote like this will be counterproductive. This is what the monorail project did - ask voters to indicate whether they wanted a transportation project without saying which taxes would rise, and how long those taxes would be in place. When that EXTREMELY RELEVANT information about taxes finally came out (before the fifth vote), the voters could put it into perspective. Then it went down 65% to 35%.
IF we have to have an advisory vote with not tax-cost information, let the people weigh in on a retrofit option too. The cost would be much less, and traffic would not be disrupted for over five years straight. That would make the structure safe enough. If the Big One hits, lots of brick buildings will be coming down and taking out many more people than the number who'd be pancaked on SR 99.
Also, this whole "tunnel vs rebuild" debate should happen, but it should take place in context. The relevant context is the slew of RTID projects and taxes set to be put on the 11/'07 ballot. For example, if the rebuild is selected, would the money saved by not selecting the tunnel be applied against the costs of the SR 520 bridge & approaches project? If not, then how much would the RTID taxes and tolls be reduced because RTID will need less money (the difference between the rebuild and tunnel options).
In other words, don't do what SMP did - provide some scenerios with estimates of how the tax costs of all the RTID projects will be impacted by whether tunnel/retrofit/rebuild/no-rebuild is selected for the SR 99 project.