So I reluctantly held my nose and cast my ballot on the viaduct issue. I’ve written about this before; here’s a good picture of what we’re talking about here in Seattle:

This is the main section of the viaduct that they’re talking about replacing with a tunnel. As you can see, it’s right up against the main core of Seattle’s downtown. The present viaduct is big and ugly. The replacement would be bigger and probably uglier if it were an above-ground viaduct.

The tunnel, on the other hand, would be at least a billion dollars more expensive, if not more.

Here’s where my building is in downtown:

You can see this picture was taken before the football stadium was finished; the skeleton of the upper deck is in place but not filled in.

As you can see, the waterfront is blocked off from the city by the viaduct. It’s a double-decker freeway, loud and stinky. To open up downtown would be a great benefit to the city; it’s literally butted right up against the water, yet there’s not a sense of connection between the downtown core and the waterfront.

The ballot for the vote is a bit weird- it’s “yes” or “no” to the question of “do you prefer an underground tunnel”, and then also another “yes” or “no” for “do you prefer a rebuilt aboveground viaduct”. In theory, a voter could put “yes” to both, “no” to both, or split the vote- like I did.

I don’t think it’ll be built, but I voted yes on the tunnel and no on the aboveground viaduct. I just can’t see the sense in tearing down one big ugly monstrosity, only to put up another one.

I’m a bit biased here; the value of my building will go up considerably if they don’t rebuild an aboveground roadway. The tunnel would be the best option for us, and then the option of replacing the freeway with a surface-grade roadway and vastly improving transit options (you can buy a lot of busses for a billion bucks).

I wish I could say what the best choice was, but this one it just too close to call. The tunnel is great but oh-so-expensive; the other options aren’t a lot better.