Seattle: A Spirited Defense of Replacing the Viaduct With a Viaduct

Usually I agree with Seattle’s Only Newspaper(tm), The Stranger.  The Stranger is the world’s best alt-weekly from where I’m sitting (which happens to be Seattle at the moment)  Their blog, SLOG, makes for great reading most times of day or night and can lead to a dangerous sucking sound around the productive hours of your day if you don’t watch yourself.

The Stranger also takes an active interest in urban planning, having attracted a fair number of people who write well on the topic.  Sadly, one of the things that makes The Stranger so much fun when they’re right, their shrill and sarcastic tone, is the thing that makes them so annoying when they’re wrong.  And the thing they’re wrong about is State House Speaker Frank Chopp’s plan for replacing the SR-99 Viaduct roadway which runs along downtown Seattle’s waterfront.  (Follow this link to get an overview of all the alternatives.)

Existing SR-99 Viaduct

The SR-99 Viaduct, an elevated roadway running right along Seattle’s waterfront, may well be in danger of collapsing when the “big one” earthquake hits, whenever that happens.  Designed and built in the 1950’s, this shoulderless, not particularly attractive road isn’t easy for anyone to love, and it’s especially hard for the car-haters over at El Extranjero to love, which is why they don’t love it.  Seattle is not exactly embroiled in a civic debate about the topic despite what The Stranger would like to believe or promote believing, but the topic does have its share of ahderents to various points of view who utilize the media to have some kind of public conversation, er, shouting match about the topic.  And despite The Stranger’s strong advocacy on the subject, Chopp was re-elected despite the plan he’s proposing – in a pretty liberal district in Seattle.

Chopp’s proposal - is it pie in the sky?

Chopp is proposing to replace the existing viaduct structure with a new viaduct structure much like it, only walled in.  Sort of like a big box on legs sitting above the ground below.  Inside the box is where the cars travel north and south, and under the box would be retail uses.  The renderings of the thing call for it to be faced with interesting materials and have hanging vines and flowers and other things to make it not look like a giant concrete box.  The Stranger points out that these decorative elements are not paid for up front in Chopp’s funding plan.  They would be financed through a tax overlay on the waterfront district.

Opponents of this and any other highway that could replace the existing highway are generally in favor of what is called the “surface option”.  The surface option would take SR-99 and run the traffic onto the ground, on a 4-lane boulevard, which would have nice wide sidewalks, and possibly some sort of streetcar (streetcars along Seattle’s waterfront are a different blog post entirely).

The Surface Option – minus buses, tractor trailers, or ferry commuters

One glaring problem with the surface option is that it doesn’t account for all the functions the existing roadway performs.  The Stranger argues correctly that sans viaduct, Seattle will figure out other ways to get around, but they also paint a rosy picture of how much easier it’s going to be on everyone when the viaduct is finally gone for good, which simply doesn’t pass the sniff test.  SR-99 serves buses, ferry traffic, and a whole lot of tractor trailers – none of which is pictured in any of the surface option’s renderings.

Finally, it seems to me that if Chopp’s proposal were a rail conduit instead of a highway, The Stranger would have no problem with it.  Instead, they’d be exhorting the opponents to consider the positive benefits such a structure might have, and they would argue that in a dense city, man-made structures fit into the landscape because the city is full of people, and people have needs that are served by such things.  So I exhort them to do the same in this case.  If this roadway will not serve auto traffic well, then tell us how that is the case.  If it is detrimental to pedestrian access to the waterfront, tell us how that is the case.  Frankly, I’ve always considered the key barrier between Seattle’s downtown and waterfront to be the big hill on which downtown is built that rises above the waterfront.  Neither boulevard nor elevated highway will fix that.

Comments

[Scott Schrantz]

I keep going back and forth on the options myself, but I always come back to supporting exactly this, replacing the viaduct with a viaduct. I don't like the viaduct being there, and I look at cities like Portland and San Francisco that transformed their waterfront by removing an ugly freeway. But at the same time, what else are you going to do? The surface option shouldn't even be on the table; that's a plan dreamed up by lunatics. There needs to be two limited-access freeways through town. The tunnel seems like it would be the ideal solution, but the nightmare of building it makes it not an option. So what's left? Keeping the viaduct. What it comes down to is that traffic flow is more important than aesthetics, no matter what the car haters want to think.

This walled-in viaduct is one I haven't heard of before. Having shops at ground level is an interesting idea, though.

[James Boyd Wright]

Would you rather be on the via duct during an earthquake, or in a tunnel beneath sea level in an earthquake?
Obviously, neither one would be desirable... unless of course you own downtown Seattle real estate that will gain a view of the water and mountains by removal of the via duct....
Thus, to charge EVERY taxpayer for this is corruption to the hilt.
The most important issue here has emerged as the knowledge that some folks in government are too corrupt to even be there. It is no wonder this state is being run suddenly into a deepening deficit... it is time to take close note of which politicians are fiscally prudent, and which are not, or ultimately we will all lose.

[Ken Manz]

James - I'd rather be where I'm least likely to be injured or die when the big one hits, though I can't really predict and consequently I can't really consider my support or opposition to any such project based on whether or not I will die if I am in/on it at such time.
Is your point that spending money on infrastructure such as highways is a waste of said money and consequently they should just tear the thing down and be done with it? Because if so, you might have made that argument better by just saying so. You'll have to draw a line in ink between the corrupted officials and the pot of money they stand to pilfer from before I'm really going to care about that argument.

Thanks for your comment.