Voters deserve honest tunnel debate

In November, Seattle voters are expected to decide whether they favor a tunnel or a more-basic rebuild to replace the ailing Alaskan Way Viaduct. Between now and then, interested parties ought to be as accurate as possible in discussing both projects.

Last week, Seattle Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis said views would be blocked from a rebuilt roadway. Ceis, an ardent supporter of a more-expensive tunnel replacement, said, "Views would be gone for (passenger) cars. People counting on views would be out of luck." This is overstated because even a barrier higher than what is currently there would leave views of water, mountains and sky for most cars, though some motorists may have to peer between the barrier and a top railing.

The barrier hasn't been designed yet. Safety standards require a solid Jersey barrier or wall 32 inches high, four inches lower than the viaduct's current 36-inch guardrail.

The new barrier could rise a few inches higher if a railing is added. It is presumed there would be space between the top of the wall and the railing. The view will change but won't be gone. Sedan passengers still could have views of the Olympic Mountains and the water.

The tunnel-versus-rebuild decision will be hard-fought. The Legislature decided Seattle voters or the City Council should determine which approach is preferable — Mayor Greg Nickels wants voters to decide — because both sides were touting estimates of costs and available dollars. Gov. Christine Gregoire's new expert panel should bring some certainty to the numbers.

Many voters who support the rebuild have mentioned sweeping views along the water as a reason for favoring a rebuild over a tunnel. If views are non-existent, that boosts support for the tunnel. The tunnel, of course, would have no views inside.

Voters should keep an open mind. Advocates of each project should be careful not to oversell their arguments. The public is best served by solid, not oversimplified or exaggerated, information.