Alaskan Way Viaduct: Why close off the tunnel option?

THIS week's expected announcement of a resolution to the Alaskan Way Viaduct is a bit of a perversion of the Seattle process, and leads to suppositions that public participation was a charade.

The much-vaunted stakeholders meetings to discuss viaduct options led to a curious vote — most people representing organizations directly tied to the viaduct voted to consider a deep-bore tunnel. The vote of the committee was nearly unanimous, except for one.

The result has been a decision by the state to ignore that option and instead consider either a street system of flowing traffic or a new form of the current viaduct. The logical question to ask of the state and city's public deliberations is: What happened?

The state's initial response was, thanks, but there's not enough money for a tunnel. That's despite the initial commandment not to consider costs. Proponents say the full vetting process was not used to explore all the options.

Of the two variations for a viaduct replacement, the surface solution — including more than two-dozen traffic lights — seems wildly out of touch with the economic needs of the city. Critics have also pointed to a one-way Western Avenue as injurious to the connectivity of the city.

The North Seattle Industrial Council, whose livelihood is directly tied to its movement of goods through the city, strongly recommends a viaduct rebuild. People interested in a visual monument to Seattle like to see open access to water, sun and the Sound.

The tunnel option accommodates both, but with added costs. The two options on the table produce the worst of all worlds — either a traffic mess downtown or a new copy of the current edifice.

We have come so far, it seems thoughtless to pin this tail on the donkey now. The two options presented as the only options are quite possibly the worst options. Continue to consider a deep-bore tunnel.