Key threat to Alaskan Way Tunnel defeated
Good news from yesterday:
Though building the Alaskan Way Tunnel would be more expensive, it's a worthy investment. The cheapest solution is not always the best solution. A tunnel would be safer, allow the waterfront to be revitalized, and would take less time to construct then the "rebuild" option. It would also be cleaner, with less air and water pollution.
The current viaduct is unsafe and really ought to be shut down immediately. But tearing down the viaduct and ultimately replacing it with nothing is not a feasible idea. As the region continues to grow, a second arterial through Seattle will become more important than ever.
Obviously you can't build your way out of traffic, but it makes sense to have more than one limited access arterial going through Seattle that is not restricted by traffic lights. Such an arterial keep the express buses moving through downtown.
More lanes aren't necessary, but the tunnel won't have more lanes than the current viaduct has. The tunnel could also be shut down and used as a key transportation lifeline in case of emergencies like a serious earthquake. Simply put, the tunnel is a sound investment that the city and state ought to make.
The proposal to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel may have gotten a nine-month reprieve Thursday, with the state House moving to put off a decision until early next year and let Gov. Christine Gregoire determine the viaduct's future.Representatives Dickerson and Helen Sommers foolishly thought it would be a good idea to force the city and the state to drop the tunnel option and focus solely on the unfeasible "rebuild" option.
A House budget amendment putting an April 1 deadline on financing the tunnel was withdrawn Thursday after Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels objected and state senators made clear they didn't like the deadline proposed by Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, D-Seattle. A House committee adopted Dickerson's amendment earlier this week.
Though building the Alaskan Way Tunnel would be more expensive, it's a worthy investment. The cheapest solution is not always the best solution. A tunnel would be safer, allow the waterfront to be revitalized, and would take less time to construct then the "rebuild" option. It would also be cleaner, with less air and water pollution.
The current viaduct is unsafe and really ought to be shut down immediately. But tearing down the viaduct and ultimately replacing it with nothing is not a feasible idea. As the region continues to grow, a second arterial through Seattle will become more important than ever.
Obviously you can't build your way out of traffic, but it makes sense to have more than one limited access arterial going through Seattle that is not restricted by traffic lights. Such an arterial keep the express buses moving through downtown.
More lanes aren't necessary, but the tunnel won't have more lanes than the current viaduct has. The tunnel could also be shut down and used as a key transportation lifeline in case of emergencies like a serious earthquake. Simply put, the tunnel is a sound investment that the city and state ought to make.
