Editor's Note: This letter was written to Governor Chris Gregoire, State Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown and House Speaker Frank Chopp, among others.

We are writing to ask that state and city decision-makers join together in taking concrete, practical steps toward moving us forward on the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct. No matter what the ultimate decision is on the configuration on the Seattle central waterfront, there are wide areas of agreement among all of us, and we would like to work with you to ensure that action on this project continues.

There is agreement on the design, engineering, and funding plan for much of the project south of King Street. We suggest that the city and state proceed immediately with construction on the sections of the project south of King Street where agreement exists.

There is also general agreement on the kinds of mitigations and transportation alternatives that will have to be implemented no matter what design is chosen for the central waterfront. We urge that the project partners proceed immediately with "the thousand little steps," including, among other things, expanding transit service and the West Seattle water taxi; renovating the Spokane Street Viaduct and adding a new connection from the Spokane Street Viaduct to Fourth Avenue South to better connect with downtown; improving the Spokane, Lander, and Mercer corridors; and better coordinating traffic signals to improve traffic in downtown and to the north. We are prepared to invest funds from our transportation budget and our voter approved transportation levy. If we can integrate those with Washington State Department of Transportation mitigation money and Metro Transit funds, we can proceed to rapidly improve the movement of people and freight throughout the corridor. This will prepare us for the construction phase of the project, and generate mobility improvements in the near-term.

These are consensus steps, and there is no reason why we cannot begin work on them as a first phase in the implementation of the overall project. Our experience working together can help us to resolve the remaining issues about the design of the central waterfront portion of the project.

In addressing the central waterfront portion of the project, we are concerned about the serious lack of consensus among elected leaders as well as the general population as to what is the best course of action. Tensions are high, as are the political, environmental, and economic stakes. The long term impacts of the replacement decision are extraordinarily significant, and we believe that no one can afford to look at this decision from a perspective that only considers their self-interest.

The choice about the preferred alternative for the Alaskan Way Viaduct is ultimately more than a transportation project; it is a choice about how Seattle will relate to its waterfront for the next 50 to 100 years.

The fact is that a project of this magnitude and cost requires the ability to achieve partnership among the city, the state and the Port of Seattle, as well as among the city, the immediately impacted businesses and neighborhoods, and the public. Recent events suggest that we have not achieved the partnerships necessary to implement any of the options, and without these, any choice will only continue to get bogged down, creating antagonism between potential partners. Whatever replacement option is chosen will generate transportation and construction impacts that will require creativity, patience, interdependency and goodwill among the public, agencies and businesses.

There are well-reasoned differences of opinion as to what the public vote on the viaduct replacement options will mean, and we are not convinced that the results will settle the issue. Our voters are divided, and some tell us that no option is clearly acceptable.

We cannot ignore the reality of where we find ourselves today, constrained by political congestion and conflict. That is why we propose that the governor, state legislators, city elected officials, and key stakeholders convene a meeting to seek consensus on how to proceed with a solution for the central waterfront section of the viaduct. Such a meeting would save invaluable time that will otherwise be expended in various forms of conflict and offers perhaps the only possibility of resolving this issue in a timely fashion and meeting our mutual interests and obligations to the public.

All of these requests - for beginning construction south of King Street, for implementing mitigation and transportation alternatives, and for a stakeholder meeting - are embodied in a resolution unanimously approved by the council, the mayor concurring.

We hope that you will seriously consider these proposals, and look forward to working with you.

Council President Nick Licata

Councilmember Richard Conlin