My name is Bob Fleming, and I am very interested in seeing a greatly improved transportation system for Seattle and the surrounding region.

Current System

A major highway along the west coast of the United States is highway 99. Before Interstate Highway 5 was built, U.S. 99 was the main highway from the Mexican border at San Ysidro, California, (just south of San Diego) to the Canadian border at Blaine, Washington. The highway passes through the states of California, Oregon, and Washington.

The portion of the highway in Washington State is now a state highway known as SR99. In Downtown Seattle the highway passes along the shore of Elliott Bay, a part of our waterfront, on an elevated structure known as the Alaskan Way Viaduct because it is built alongside a street known as Alaskan Way.

Current Problems

The Alaskan Way Viaduct was built in the 1950s, so is quite old. Wear and tear from traffic and weather is showing in cracked concrete and other damage. A few years ago a strong earthquake caused some damage to the structure. Repairs were made, but engineers fear that another major earthquake could result in collapse of the structure. Engineers and the state highway department urge replacement as soon as possible.

There is a major controversy over what to do about the Viaduct. Various plans include:

• Tear it down and replace it with a better elevated roadway
• Tear it down and replace it with a tunnel
• Tear it down and replace it with a surface boulevard
• Tear it down and do not replace it with anything
• Make major repairs to the existing structure

My Opinions

A tunnel will open up the waterfront and eliminate the bulky viaduct structure. However the cost will be around four to five billion dollars, the watefront will be torn up by construction for several years, and there is no alternative in place for viaduct traffic during construction.

A new viaduct will be bigger than the old one, will cost more than three billion dollars, will tear up the waterfront for several years, and there is no alternative in place for fiaduct traffic during construction. Furthermore, to many people the viaduct is an ugly eyesore that prevents true beautification of the waterfront, and a new viaduct will only make a fifty- to 100-year comittment to more of the same, only bigger.

Another matter not taken into consideration in either the tunnel or viaduct option is that it really appears that our oil supplies are going to gradually grow scarcer and more expensive. It is reasonable to expect the cost of driving to go up over the years ahead, and that an ever-increasing number of drivers will choose to drive less and use mass transit more. It is quite likely that in twenty or more years or so the number of cars on the road will actually be less than now. Both the tunnel and viaduct options will make a commitment for fifty years to a century, and neither option can be reasonably adjusted later if traffic volumes decrease.

Taking everything into account, I think the most reasonable plan is to immediately begin maltiple projects to provide for shifting traffic to the surface, build rapid transit options, and then tear down the viaduct.

My plan includes a nice boulevard along the waterfront, improvement to other streets, improvements to Interstate Highway 5 through Downtown Seattle, construction of a modified version of the cancelled Green Line monorail, and improvements to bus service.

In the past the Washington State Department of Transportation has insisted that a viaduct replacement must, at a minimum, be able to handle the same volume of traffic as the current viaduct. My argument is to split the traffic volume between through and local traffic.

The waterfront boulevard would be intended primarily to handle through traffic between West Seattle and South Seattle on one hand and Interbay, Ballard, and Aurora Avenue North on the other hand, with no on or off ramps along the Downtown waterfront area.

For traffic from the southwest bound for the Downtown area, an expressway would be built down the middle of Fourth Avenue South. This street has a wide right-of-way and it should be possible to have two lanes of expressway in each direction in the center of the corridor, separated from two lanes for local traffic on each side. Improved access would be provided from an improved West Seattle Viaduct. There would be interchanges at major cross streets.

Improvements should also be made to First Avenue South and Alaskan Way South to handle more traffic to Downtown, the waterfront, and the Sodo District.

For traffic from the north bound for the Downtown area, the situation is more complex. Certainly Aurora Avenue North, which is already part of SR99, would be the main route, but there would also have to be improved access from Elliott Avenue West.

I would think that these improvements together would handle the traffic currently using the viaduct.

There would be a significant number of people that would stop commuting by car if they had a good, fast, and reliable transit alternative. Streetcars are too slow and so are buses. Light rail would take up a twenty-foot wide corridor of real estate, wiping out many homes and businesses and creating safety hazards, unless placed underground or elevated, and both of those option would be very expensive. A monorail would cost less that the other high-speed options, would take up little space on the ground, would not present hazards to pedestrians or cars, and would not be subject to delays by surface congestion. The Green Line monorail is already partially designed, and a variation of this line would be a very logical solution to rapid transit from West Seattle to Downtown and from northwest Seattle to Downtown.

These various projects would begin immediately, and as projects are completed more and more traffic would use these alternatives instead of the Viaduct. As traffic loads on the alternatives increase, and as results become clear, project planning can be altered to adjust to what is learned. At some point, one lane of the Viaduct would be closed off. Eventually the Viaduct would be shut down and torn down.