As I told Ross Reynolds on KUOW's The Conversation this afternoon, the debate over how to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct is far from over. The obvious factor, of course, is House Speaker Frank Chopp, who isn't going to let his enclosed elevated highway proposal (more about that here, here and here) die. Although the governor, mayor, and county executive have narrowed their list of preferred options to two (a six-lane, divided surface option and two new two-lane elevated viaducts), that decision is merely advisory. Sources who've met with Chopp say his current line is: "The executives are making a recommendation, the Legislature is making the decision." In other words, this week's "final decision" was anything but—at least as far as the House Speaker is concerned.

Supporters of the surface/transit option are characteristically optimistic about their chances, noting that now that all the tunnel options are off the table, those whose primary motivation is improving the waterfront should be ready to rally behind the surface/transit option, if only because they consider it the lesser of two evils. However, two recent developments should be cause for worry: First, the group that came out in support of a combo surface/tunnel option this week—the so-called "grand compromise"—seems far from unified, with some members likely to support the surface option and others likely to defect to the elevated rebuild, depending on whether their primary motivation was improving the waterfront or moving traffic through downtown. (Any surface option would be slower than an elevated highway, with speed limits of 30 mph rather than 50 on an elevated viaduct).

Second, there's the fact that many officials still aren't sold on any of the available options, especially surface/transit. For example: Unbeknownst to most outside the county, county council budget chair Larry Phillips inserted an item in the county budget adopted earlier this month that allocates $250,000 to an "expert review panel" (yes, another one) to "develop an independent analysis" of the various viaduct replacement options. "This analysis shall evaluate the mobility impacts of the options and the county's ability to provide transit services assumed in each option"—a clear slap at the surface/transit proposal, which assumes a much greater increase in transit service than the elevated and tunnel options. The panel, unlike the stakeholder advisory group whose work led to this week's decision, would consist only of transportation professionals "who have published in a national trade journal and have the skills to evaluate mobility impacts and transit functionality and the county's ability to provide transit services assumed in each option." That would probably eliminate surface/transit proponents like People's Waterfront Coalition founder Cary Moon, who is a landscape architect, not a traffic engineer. Initially, Phillips's proposal would have only taken effect if a surface/transit option was chosen as the preferred alternative.

Moon says she thinks surface/transit has a strong shot—"if community groups and business groups and environmental groups stand together." But the more divisiveness people like Phillips (who was not able to return a call for comment this afternoon) sow, the more likely it is that the Great Wall of Chopp will emerge victorious.