Eliminate viaduct "no build" option

Seattle City Councilman David Della is right to try to give voters a cleaner, clearer choice on the best way to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Some Seattleites want to forget about rebuilding the viaduct and instead use a surface street to carry a fraction of cars that currently travel the roadway. Della doesn't believe a surface street is an acceptable transportation solution. So, he asked state Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald to determine whether $2 billion in state funds already committed to a viaduct replacement could be transferred to a surface street project, which likely would cost less.

If the answer is no — and it appears to be — Della hopes to remove the so-called "no build" option from the November public advisory vote in Seattle. That would make the vote clearer and more compelling.

The Legislature specified a public advisory vote or a City Council vote this year to determine whether citizens want an aerial rebuild or a tunnel. It did not mention a surface street as a choice.

Some City Council members want to include the boulevard idea on the ballot, but that muddles things by making it unlikely any option would receive 50 percent or more of the public vote.

To Mayor Greg Nickels' credit, he has embraced a public vote and will take his case for a tunnel to voters. If he wanted, he probably could collect five council votes for the tunnel, though most council members by now are committed to a public vote.

The underlying legislation appears to rule out transferring the money, so MacDonald should make clear the state's $2 billion contribution approved last year for the viaduct cannot be used for a surface street. That option exacerbates, rather than solves, a transportation problem.

The boulevard means voters would spend $1 billion or more and many of the 110,000 cars that use the viaduct every day would spill over onto Interstate 5 and adjacent neighborhoods.

Our city desperately needs workable transportation solutions. The surface street may force a few more people onto mass transit but does nothing about other cars and commercial traffic. It is not a practical transportation solution.