Staff Editorial: Viaduct vote to determine the lesser of two evils

If you haven't already received your ballot for the vote on the Alaskan Way Viaduct, it'll be in the mail soon enough. The first vote in Seattle's history to be held entirely by mail, the ballots will ask Seattle voters whether they prefer a tunnel or another elevated structure to replace the Viaduct.

Nobody can refute the fact that the Viaduct needs to come down. Structural experts estimate a one in 20 chance of an earthquake-related failure of the Viaduct during the next 10 years, according to the Washington State Department of Transportation. Narrowing the choice to these two options, though, is a shortsighted way to rule out what may be a better option [HTML_REMOVED] a surface street.

People are voting based on what things will be like when all is said and done more than 10 years from now. What many are neglecting to take into account is the fact that while construction is taking place, one of Seattle's main thoroughfares will be completely closed to traffic, spreading gridlock through the rest of the city. The net worth of a decade of headaches may rest on this ballot.

What people need to think about in making this vote is how traffic will acclimate to the long years the Viaduct will be closed, and what the best option is for the city once it has adapted to the changes. West Seattle residents can't stop going to work downtown, Mariners and Seahawks games aren't going to stop happening and the volume of displaced traffic will need somewhere to go.

Anyone who drives in the city knows that I-5 can't handle much more than it does now. The surface streets are already clogged during rush hour (especially with Third Avenue still closed frequently to most traffic). While the more stubborn drivers are likely to deal with increased commute times, many will be forced to switch to mass transportation (enter the Link Light Rail lines, scheduled to open in 2009).

If a good portion of commuters actually make the switch to mass transportation, our tax dollars would be better spent improving those systems instead of worrying about how to fit a highway onto (or into) the waterfront. A surface street could carry the volume we need it to and slash the tunnel option's $3.4 billion price tag to something far more manageable.