The viaduct was damaged, but didn't collapse. That was only by fortuitous accident, engineers said later. Had that 2001 earthquake been a bit stronger or lasted, say, 20 seconds longer, the elevated roadway would have pancaked like a deadly house of cards.
Thus began the process of endless studies, debate, attempted consensus -- and eventually lawsuits and recall attempts -- that often characterizes Seattle politics. Everyone is polite (the worst name-calling here happens when one side accuses the other of not being "real" environmentalists); everyone has an opinion; and nothing ever gets decided.
The issue: Should the viaduct be dismantled and replaced with a $3.1 billion deep-bore tunnel project that will carry traffic under and through downtown -- that's what the state Department of Transportation and most of the City Council want to do -- or should the city pursue a much cheaper network of improvements to surface streets and Interstate 5 that will carry traffic around downtown?
That's where things sit Tuesday, the deadline for mailing in ballots on a referendum that is intended to be a final thumbs-up or thumbs-down on the conundrum known simply as the Tunnel.
If the referendum passes, the City Council will be free to sign the last agreements with the state to proceed with groundbreaking for the tunnel, which makes up $1.9 billion of the estimated $3.1 billion cost of the transportation improvement project, in the fall. If it fails, the city and state will likely try to go ahead with the tunnel anyway. How long can you talk about an issue, after all? But opponents believe a resounding public "no" will, at the very least, send a strong cautionary message to City Hall.
(Warning: The language of the referendum is actually so technical and confusing that both sides could wind up declaring victory when it's over.)
The tunnel would be the largest deep-bore tunnel ever constructed, stacking cars vertically inside a 57.4-foot-diameter underground pipe running 1.7 miles through the heart of the city.
Proponents argue that it would give the city a chance to dump the ugly viaduct and build a "world-class" waterfront that for the first time takes advantage of the breathtaking views of Elliott Bay and the Olympic Mountains.
Opponents say that, with little access to downtown from the tunnel, it would make travel harder, not easier, and would further wed people to their automobiles. They also warn that the $400 million in tolls the state is hoping will help pay for the project will never materialize -- drivers will churn onto surface streets anyway to avoid them -- and Seattle taxpayers will be left to cover the shortfall.
As the sun set over the Olympics, pro-tunnel Councilmember Richard Conlin said the scene from Pier 57 made him think of what the entire waterfront would look like if the viaduct were removed.
In a statement Tuesday night, Gregoire said the vote sent a clear message that "enough is enough."
Even before Tuesday's outcome, the state was determined to press ahead with the project. Contracts have been awarded and groundbreaking is scheduled for early next month. The tunnel is supposed to be completed by December 2015.
The referendum was seen as a measure of public support for the tunnel, even if the actual ballot language was on a narrow question of whether the City Council should approve technical agreements with the state on the project.
Barring a major turnaround in later vote counts, Tuesday's result clears one of the last political hurdles for the long-debated viaduct replacement.
Tunnel supporters portrayed McGinn as an obstructionist whose referendum would only prolong the process of replacing the viaduct. The Let's Move Forward campaign also reminded voters that on the eve of the 2009 mayoral election, McGinn promised to not withhold the city's cooperation on the project.
The pro-tunnel forces vastly outspent the opposition, raising $447,521, much of it from major business interests.
Protect Seattle Now, the anti-tunnel campaign, raised $95,374. But more than half its donations came before April, when it was gathering signatures to get the measure on the ballot. The Sierra Club was the biggest donor with $13,120.
Two McGinn staff members took leaves of absence to work on the signature-gathering effort. McGinn and O'Brien hosted fundraisers; McGinn's campaign consultant Bill Broadhead donated $5,000 and McGinn's wife donated $500.
Protect Seattle Now, with support from the Sierra Club, Real Change newspaper, and a citizens group that favors a viaduct rebuild, submitted more than 29,000 signatures to the city March 29 to qualify the referendum for the ballot. That day, City Attorney Pete Holmes filed a lawsuit challenging the measure's legality.
King County Superior Court Judge Laura Gene Middaugh ruled in May that one clause of the council ordinance adopting the tunnel agreements could go to voters as a referendum. That clause directs the council to give notice to the state to proceed once the final environmental reviews are completed and the project is approved by the federal government.
The narrow, procedural ruling left tunnel backers arguing that the vote would have no legal effect on the project, while McGinn and anti-tunnel activists said it would be a referendum on whether the city supported the project. Faced with poor poll numbers on their favored surface-transit option, tunnel opponents were left criticizing the tunnel but offering no funded alternative.
No comments:
Post a Comment