Do you viaduct? One of the guilty pleasures of life in Seattle is that giddy rush one gets exiting the Battery Street tunnel southbound. A stunning waterfront vista envelops one's senses in vibrant maritime activity stretching out across Elliott Bay to the snow-capped Olympics. Maybe it's just a routine trip to work, or to pick up some relatives at Sea-Tac. Maybe its several times a day, maybe once in a blue moon. The view is ever changing, familiar yet new, and always spectacular. Coming north, the city skyline descends to the Bay, the white Smith tower framed by the black of Columbia Center... a truly amazing approach to a beautiful city.

I viaduct... have done since I can remember. I call it a guilty pleasure because it is often "stolen" from an otherwise mundane workday and obtained while riding in an environmentally despicable motor vehicle. Our viaduct delivers this sensuous experience while also supporting over 100,000 vehicle trips per day all year long. Businesses and employees in the 99 corridor depend on it. It makes life possible for people in West Seattle and Ballard and many other neighborhoods as well. The viaduct works... and now they want to take it away.

What crimes have our waterfront arterial committed that have led to its impending death sentence?

1) It separates "us" from "our" waterfront.
2) It is "ugly."
3) It is falling into disrepair and could collapse in an earthquake.

So how will our City and State leaders address these fatal flaws? First they suggest a tunnel, but it costs too much. Then they suggest "tunnel light," which costs somewhat less but can't deliver the goods (and views are really sucky from a tunnel). Realizing people were cool to their pricy tunnel options, they design the "Big Ugly" viaduct. It can handle the traffic, but is noticeably bulkier than the current item.
A rigged advisory ballot (2007) proves the tunnel is unpopular, but these good people manage to spin the result to suggest the viaduct is also unwanted.* With tunnel and elevated options both said to be in the doghouse, a "no-no" option gains favor. Falsely claiming that all the no votes reflect "no arterial at all," a surface option is created. It delivers neither efficient transportation nor views, and divides the city from the waterfront more completely than the other options. But it's ..."clearly better... for pedestrians and bicycles," says David Dye (Washington State Dept. of Transportation). Pedestrians and bicycles?

In response to the obvious shortcomings of all these lead balloons, more ideas keep erupting. How about Frank Chopp's "Great Wall?" It would create an actual, physical wall between the city and it's waterfront... or the current elevated favorite with two side-by-side structures delivering fewer trips and permanently shading a larger area beneath? All the while, "tunnel" is whispered into our subconscious as the only viable option (just toss your wallet in the basket)... until "viola" a tunnel is "our" consensus choice! So what if it can't handle the current traffic volume, eliminates southbound access from the Interbay corridor, won't be wide enough to add transit and was the one option explicitly rejected by voters.

Artists' renderings of various proposed options say it all - listless looking pedestrians hang around umbrella-shaded tables, apparently resting up for their next strenuous bout of shopping. Is this all our city has to offer the world? The current viaduct works. It's productive. It's a delight to drive. Yes it is shabby and needs repair - even replacement. But the design is basically sound. Why spend more and get less? Why take away the views afforded to hundreds of thousands of viaduct users to please a few wealthy developers and condo residents? If environmental factors are a concern, design in transit. But do keep Seattle working - viaduct!

* The 2007 advisory ballot used a confusing double vote system... vote for the option you want and against the one you don't want. This virtually guaranteed that "no" votes would predominate. People who wanted a viaduct voted against a tunnel and vice/versa. People who wanted neither voted no to both. People who wanted to retrofit the existing viaduct or who wanted a different "new" viaduct also voted no. If tunnel fans had to give up their favorite and choose between a viaduct or nothing, many of them would prefer a viaduct. Similarly, if "no-no" voters had to choose between a viaduct or nothing, many of them would vote viaduct. If the choice were yes or no on the viaduct option, a clear majority of Seattleites (and a huge majority of "stakeholders" in the 99 corridor) would vote yes. It is doubtful that more than 15 percent of voters favored the surface option.

Steve Ludwig
Ballard