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! —Eds.
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 father’s 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, “We’re going to tear down that viaduct, and we’re going to replace it with a tunnel.”
We’ve 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 “No and Hell No” 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 weren’t 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 wouldn’t 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 O’Brien, and a fair number of activists. On the pro-tunnel side is the entire city’s 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, they’ll let us hold on to the cash. The idea of a “surface/transit” 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 don’t 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, we’ll know maintaining auto capacity is important, and we’ll 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, we’ll have the chance of finally proving one or the other side wrong.
“the money will go away”?
Really?
Like the city-paid-for Sea Wall?
I think you mean the INCREASED PROPERTY TAXES for all Citizens of Seattle will go away if we kill the Deeply Borrowed Tunnel. That and the $8 to $10 roundtrip tolls that put it out of the price range of all but the limo-riding Millionaires and Billionaires who ignored the vote by the Citizens not to build a Tunnel.
Wait a second… the anti-tunnelers use WINE GLASSES? And they write CHECKS? This changes everything I’ve ever thought about the tunnel. Excuse me, I’m off to get my money back.
@2 well, at the party hosted by the two Mikes, I think they had brats and were using any glass they could get their hands on, including glass jars. Including some wine glasses – but probably cause there were too many people last Friday, many of them young Seattle parents with babes in arms.
Fine. Strike the provision putting Seattle on the hook for cost overruns and you’ll get no argument from me. Well, maybe less of an argument.
Wider I5?
I didn’t know we could get that instead of a stupid old tunnel.
Now I’m really anti.
More lanes on I5 would finally pull the butt plug of downtown out of the colon of Puget Sound highways.
Hey, nice! And remember taking the viaduct down before the tunnel’s in place is the opposite of what the legislature voted to do. Anyone who wants the viaduct taken down sooner should ask the mayor to go use some of those great working relationships in Olympia he’s cultivated on your behalf.
Will Kelley-Kamp: 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 wouldn’t take this threat too seriously. If the mayor, a single councilmember, and a referendum can stop the state from building the tunnel, then certainly the mayor and all nine councilmembers can stop the state from building a new viaduct.
Questions for Will in response to your own question, “Why not tear it down sooner?” You seem to be deploying one of the tunnel foes’ chief gambits.
Are you saying the state should start planning to tear down the viaduct sooner in the context of still going ahead with the tunnel project? Or are you saying the state should delay the tunnel project until after the managed teardown? You appear to be implying the latter. If so, how do you expect to compel the state to do that other than by blocking the tunnel project through referendum? And how much delay are you willing to tolerate while you get your political ducks in a row for a teardown? How soon could a teardown reasonably take place if we’re back to Square One politically?
Which returns us to the Take Home Message from yesterday’s SLOG thread:
Why NOT tear down the Viaduct sooner (e.g. before 2012) than later (e.g. 2016 as the pro-tunnel risk-taking debt-sodden tunnelers want)?
Well? If it’s dangerous, do it now.
#8
A question which even as high an official as Mike McGinn has asked…yet, the answer is…silence.
@9 no, I think he answered that.
it’s very annoying that we constantly seem to be building new roads instead of improving our existing ones for bigger and smoother numbers.
The tunnel and viaduct are bad ideas.
@11, the viaduct replacement isn’t a new road – it’s a capacity reduction replacement for a crumbling state highway.
I don’t buy this logic. The viaduct is part of the state highway system. One way or the other, it has to be decommissioned – and soon – and the state will have to pay for that since it’s their highway. The money doesn’t go away; it’s just kicked a little further down the road.
I love the argument, though. It exemplifies civil-service thinking. (“I know we don’t NEED a new printer, but if we don’t spend the money, we LOSE it!”)
Really, though – that’s the best op-ed that’s been submitted thus far? Come on – someone must have a compelling case to make.
Wow #13. Did you ever take Introduction to Logic?
Your argument is totally absurd.