Alaskan Way Viaduct: Retrofit won't do

Thursday, May 4, 2006

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

Two retired civil engineers continue to press for a retrofit of the Alaskan Way Viaduct. But regardless of its touted fiscal merit, this "fourth way" is the second-worst way to deal with the situation.

The worst is the proposal to put up a super-sized version of the existing structure.

In making this 50- to 100-year decision, Seattle may want to set a goal more visionary than keeping the thing from falling down in the next earthquake. That safety concern, of course, remains paramount, but beyond eliminating the risk of a collapse, is there more Seattle wants to get out of this project?

If so, a patch job won't fit the bill.

If the goal is to reunite downtown Seattle with its waterfront, the cut-and-cover tunnel approach would work, but at tremendous cost. The "third way" of simply removing the viaduct accomplishes the aesthetic goal but does so at the cost of dealing with the lost vehicle capacity through more transit and diversion to I-5 and surface streets.

The City Council has ponied up a token $15,000 for further review of that teardown option. We probably won't learn much from that unless it includes the state's traffic plan for doing without the viaduct through the years it would take to replace it.

"We're spending $15,000 to kiss away $2 billion," complained Councilman David Della, referring to the $2 billion in state money earmarked for viaduct replacement.

It would be worse to kiss away Seattle's opportunity to seek out the best possible way.

Soundoff (Read 82 comments)
Tell us what's on your mind.


Which way should Seattle go on Alaskan Way Viaduct?
14.5% Replace with larger elevated structure.	37.9% Replace with tunnel.
12.9% Don't replace.	34.6% Repair and retrofit existing structure.
Total Votes: 2390