Taking a short break from the election results (go Rossi!), the legislature is beginning to take a firm position on Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement funding. (Seattle told to fill cash gap for viaduct) There are two remaining options the state transportation department is considering to fix the viaduct: tear it down and replace it with the exact same structure (the rebuild option), or tear it down and put the whole thing underground (the tunnel option). The tunnel would cost more, take longer to build, prohibit movement of some freight, remove downtown on and off-ramps, and eliminate spectacular views of Rainier and the waterfront for users of the viaduct. Of course, that is the option the Mayor prefers to "create development opportunities on properties whose waterfront view is now blocked by the viaduct."

Neighborhoods north and south of downtown favor the rebuild option, often strongly so. For example, the Ballard District Council voted unanimously last week to support the rebuild. The Duwamish and Interbay industrial areas depend on freight mobility on the viaduct, and only the rebuild would allow all trucks to move along the viaduct - flammable cargo could not move through the tunnel. Only downtown interests strongly support the tunnel option.

Legislators are right to protect the state purse by funding only the cheaper rebuild option.

In a final note, I've heard rumors of a University of Washington study suggesting that the viaduct can be reinforced rather than replaced, reducing the cost from billions to hundreds of millions. However, Google hasn't turned up any links. If you have a copy of this study, please let me know in the comments or through the tip email: soundpolitics_tips at usefulwork dot com.