This guest post is by Will Kelley-Kamp, a great writer and all-'round awesome fellow, who responded to a call for pro-tunnel op-eds. Take it away, Will! âEds.
In 2003, I remember standing in a room full of architect-types eating campaign fundraiser food, drinking from wine glasses. In a condo overlooking the park that bears his fatherâs name, city councilman Peter Steinbrueck addressed the urban liberals gathered to write him checks. Two years after the earthquake that damaged it, Steinbrueck made clear his preference for what, if anything, should replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct.
I remember his words being, to the effect, âWeâre going to tear down that viaduct, and weâre going to replace it with a tunnel.â
Weâve come a long way since then. By now, the pointy-headed urbanistas have switched sides, thrown down their wine glasses, and joined the resistance. They said âNo and Hell Noâ to a new viaduct and cut-and-cover tunnel in 2007, the oddest election ever run, which asked voters if they wanted a viaduct AND a tunnel. (Voters werenât asked if they wanted a tunnel OR a viaduct, just if they wanted each one independent of the other. Only in a our city would this kind of civic silliness be winked at.)
In 2009, the voters said yes (ever so slightly) to Mike McGinn, who reached office by saying that he would fight the since agreed on tunnel plan with every fiber of his being, before explaining on a windy Seattle sidewalk that maybe he wouldnât fight it that hard after all. It is this flippiest of flops that is credited by many to be what gave him his narrow margin of victory and Joni Balter weeks worth of columns.
The political odds seem stacked. On the anti-tunnel side is the mayor, city council member Mike OâBrien, and a fair number of activists. On the pro-tunnel side is the entire cityâs legislative delegation to Olympia, county executive Dow Constantine, Governor Chris Gregoire, the Seattle Times, businesses large and small, and various bureaucracies like WSDOT. The state has appropriated billions for the project, and it seems unlikely that, if we somehow stop them from building the tunnel, theyâll let us hold on to the cash. The idea of a âsurface/transitâ solution, however tantalizing, seems like less of a bargain when being forced to pay the bill for it ourselves.
If we reject the tunnel, the money will go away, and will be turned in to a north-south freeway in Spokane, or added lanes on I-405. Or part could be used to widen I-5 under the convention center, which might be the best-case scenario. Or it could be moved to the 520 bridge replacement project, which is short of funds. Or, just to spite us, they could give us a brand new viaduct, a wider, bigger, quieter replacement of the current structure complete with downtown exits and grand views of the harbor.
I donât feel wedded to the terrible arguments put forth by clueless politicians who put up pictures of pancaked freeways as reason to build a tunnel. If the current structure is so unsafe, why have we taken ten years to finally decide what to do about it? Why do tunnel supporters want to leave it in place until 2016? It seems like a risk not worth taking. Why not tear it down sooner? If there is gridlock, weâll know maintaining auto capacity is important, and weâll build a tunnel (or a new viaduct). If we can live without it, so much the better, but we should find this out sooner rather than later. Either way, weâll have the chance of finally proving one or the other side wrong.
