Seattle Voters Need a 'Transit + Streets' Option

Seattle Viaduct politics are starting to resemble the Perfect Storm. Governor Gregoire surprised everyone by not deciding on a solution last month. Rather, she declared the tunnel funding plan insufficient and infeasible, and then advised Seattle to hold a public vote to resolve the political standoff between the tunnel and elevated camps.

Pro-tunnel folks are aware the tunnel has weak support and fear it will not win at the ballot. City Council, as you may remember, stated that the elevated highway does not conform to a variety of established city codes--shoreline protection, zoning height limits, and growth management--and made clear they would not allow it to be built.

So neither of the state's Department of Transportation highway proposals looks like it has much chance of being realized.

Given that, many local elected officials are thinking a special vote is not appropriate at this time, and are scrambling to find a compromise solution to offer Seattle citizens and state leaders instead. They are considering solutions that provide mobility through a variety of modes instead of channeling all the cars to the waterfront, which is great.

Yet we, the voters, should be wary of politicians taking the reins from transportation planners in a mad rush to reach compromise on a political timeline. This doesn't bode well for getting the smartest solution.

In September, the Seattle City Council and Mayor Nickels stated that an approach like Transit + Streets--the use of improved public transit with improvements on existing downtown streets--is their preferred plan should a tunnel prove infeasible. Then in November, the Council set aside $500,000 in the 2007 budget to flesh out and refine a Transit + Streets proposal to an appropriate level of detail.

Now seems like exactly the right time to move forward on this. Because the tunnel plan has been declared infeasible by the Governor, if the elevated highway is the only real plan on the table, it holds the dangerous position of being the obvious choice to most voters.

The City of Seattle should act responsibly toward preparing their preferred back-up plan by fully developing the Transit + Streets proposal before voters are asked to choose.

There are transportation planners who have done this successfully before in other cities and who are eager to help Seattle figure out the best solution. There is funding to engage this expertise. King County and many leaders in the region and state have already signalled readiness to work constructively with Seattle toward this solution.

There are national public interest groups ready to help, organizations with a wealth of knowledge on how cities can achieve lasting gains for mobility, economy, environment and community by reclaiming waterfront land, improving connectivity in the larger street grid, and improving transit choices. Let's do it!

Readers are invited to contact the Seattle City Council, Seattle Mayor Nickels, and state representatives to express opinions on this matter:

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels

webmail at www.seattle.gov/mayor/citizen_response.htm or call at (206) 684-4000

Seattle City Council members

nick.licata@seattle.gov (206) 684-8803

sally.clark@seattle.gov (206) 684-8802

richard.conlin@seattle.gov (206) 684-8805

david.della@seattle.gov (206) 684-8806

jan.drago@seattle.gov (206) 684-8801

jean.godden@seattle.gov (206) 684-8807

richard.mciver@seattle.gov (206) 684-8800

tom.rasmussen@seattle.gov (206) 684-8808