Viaduct: To Vote or Not To Vote

I would be remiss if I didn't review the current situation with the Viaduct upon my return to posting here. Of course the latest news is Mrs. Gregoire's push for a public vote. It seems to me that, she's trying to have it both ways with this course of action. On the one hand, she avoids having to make a decision herself, but on the other hand, she can "put the pressure on" and appear to be a strong leader.

Gov. Christine Gregoire on Thursday said the state would move ahead with replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with an elevated highway if the city of Seattle fails to let voters decide the project's future this spring.

Gregoire last month called for a public vote in Seattle to break the political stalemate over whether to build a more affordable elevated structure or a tunnel that she considers financially out of reach.

She wants the vote to take place before this year's legislative session ends in April. The session starts Monday.

In recent weeks, some Seattle City Council members have questioned whether the issue should go before voters.

The governor gave the ultimatum in an interview at her office. If the public doesn't vote before lawmakers leave town, "it's over," she said. "It's over because then I will instruct the Department of Transportation to move forward with the above-ground" option.

At least she is (apparently) putting her foot down. Of course, any public vote on the matter will not include my favorite option, because a bridge doesn't cost enough to be worthwhile to the politicians' political backers. But I digress.

One thing in particular that amused me in this latest batch of Viaduct news is the amazingly blatant flip-flop-flipping of Mayor Nickels.

March 9, 2006: "Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, who is pushing hard for a tunnel, said he welcomes a public vote."

September 22, 2006: "Mayor Greg Nickels, who had initially supported a vote, said he changed his mind after learning of the new numbers, feeling they were too uncertain to send to a vote."

December 21, 2006: "Mayor Greg Nickels, a tunnel advocate, said last week he welcomed a vote. Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis said Wednesday the mayor stands by that position."

So which one is it Greg? Is citizen input welcome, or are we too stupid to comprehend all the nuances of funding a "$4.6 billion" (yeah right) tunnel?

Also worth noting is Danny Westneat's editorial yesterday in which he suggests that the city do a trial run of sorts on life without the viaduct:

So here's my modest proposal: Let's just try it. Close the viaduct. It's unsafe anyway, remember? Let's come up with a thousand-point plan like they did for the bus tunnel and shut down the viaduct for a month or two. Then see what happens.

That sounds like a good way to (hopefully) settle the argument about whether or not the "no build" plan is a viable option. Personally I think it would be stupid to tear down the viaduct and not replace it with another freeway, but I'd rather the city do that than sink untold billions of dollars into Big Dig, part II.

(Andrew Garber & Bob Young, Seattle Times, 01.05.2007)
(Danny Westneat, Seattle Times, 01.07.2007)