Consensus Achieved!

Woo Hoo! Consensus!

Both the Governor and the Mayor ended up with egg on their faces after the overwhelming defeat of the ballot measures. Mayor Nickels said it was clear that “the people of Seattle do not want a highway on the waterfront.”  Governor Gregoire acknowledged that both the City and State needed to go back to the drawing board to come up with a solution that was palatable to the citizens of Seattle. So, from March to December, little substantive work was done.  The City and State agreed to a “cooling off period”, and would perform non-controversial work on the north and south ends of the SR 99 corridor, leaving a decision on the middle mile for later.

Finally, in the winter of 2007, the State of Washington, King County and the City of Seattle convened a 29-member Stakeholder Advisory Committee in order to solicit citizen input. The committee was sponsored by the Seattle, King County and Washington State Departments of Transportation, and comprised of citizen representatives from business, industry, and labor, as well as from the neighborhoods and from various cause-driven organizations such as the People’s Waterfront Coalition, the Sierra Club, the Cascade Bicycle Club and the Transportation Choices Coalition.  A full list of the participants can be found here.  The committee was given certain guiding principles to follow, such as:

• Improve public safety
• Provide efficient movement of people and goods now and in the future.
• Maintain or improve downtown Seattle, regional, the port and state economies.
• Enhance Seattle’s waterfront, downtown and adjacent neighborhoods as a place for people.
• Create solutions that are fiscally responsible.
• Improve the health of the environment.

Over the next year, the stakeholders began by determining how they would measure success vis-à-vis the guiding principles, and then by identifying various transportation projects (referred to as ‘building blocks’) that could be a part of a solution.  These building blocks were recommended by the three Departments of Transportation, and grouped into five areas:  I-5, SR 99 (part 1 / part 2), Surface Streets, Transit, and Policies and Management.  Within each of these areas, there were various themes, and within the themes there were specific projects.  A full list of these projects can be found by following the hyperlinks above.

This committee of citizens from across the political and business spectrum was able to come together to identify eleven scenarios, made up of these different building blocks. These scenarios were:

• Scenario A – Demand Management on City Streets (No Rebuild/No Tunnel)
• Scenario B – Surface Boulevard (4-Lane Alaskan Way + Transit)
• Scenario C – Alaskan Way / Western Avenue Couplet (6-Lanes + Transit)
• Scenario D – 4-Lane Elevated (Viaduct Rebuild)
• Scenario E – 4-Lane Integrated Elevated (Viaduct Rebuild + Park & Business)
• Scenario F – 4-Lane Deep Bore Tunnel
• Scenario G – 4- Lane Cut and Cover Tunnel
• Scenario H – 4-Lane Lidded Trench

Throughout the summer and fall of 2008, the stakeholders committee evaluated all of these scenarios, their impact on the local and regional economies, the movement of freight, the pedestrian accessibility, as well as the effects on commuters, the environment, downtown parking, transit, and of course, the overall costs.  And after nearly a year of study, in December 2008, the panel released its recommendations.  The committee determined that all the options were fatally flawed in some way, save for two hybrid scenarios: the SR 99 Elevated Bypass Scenario (map & fact sheet), and the I-5, Surface and Transit Scenario (map & fact sheet), which was generally preferred because of its positive effects on the waterfront.

Under the close scrutiny of a large and widely-drawn body of citizens, as well as the City, County and State Departments of Transportation, the possibility of tearing down the viaduct without building a new bypass highway was fully vetted and pronounced feasible.

Continue to Part Four:  Consensus Rejected or Deep Boredom