Seattle shouldn't repeat its viaduct mistake

When considering Seattle's future, it's helpful to look back at our past.

Take the Alaskan Way Viaduct. When it opened in 1952, the "modern" double-decker highway replaced a tangle of railroad tracks along the shores of Seattle's working waterfront.

It might have made sense to some at the time to wall off the still-gritty waterfront from the city with a noisy concrete curtain. But it didn't take very long for people to realize that we'd made a very big mistake.

Which is why it is all the more baffling that 50 years later, when we finally have the chance to do it right by replacing the viaduct with a tunnel, some people are arguing we should make the same mistake all over again.

Another noisy, messy blight — is that what we want to leave to our children?

The answer is yes if you listen to the growing chorus of "can'ts" in newspapers and on talk radio these days. They say it is just too hard.

They say we "can't" build a tunnel along our waterfront. We "can't" replace the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge. We "can't" build light rail or streetcars.

There is a drumbeat to roll back the user fees (gas taxes) that pay for transportation projects around the state. The forces behind it don't want to invest in our future. Good thing for all of us that hasn't always been the case in our region.

Since the birth of our city more than 150 years ago, every generation has left its mark on Seattle. We have their foresight to thank for many of the things that make Seattle a special place we love.

Where would we be if City Engineer R.H. Thomson said in the 1890s, we "can't" build a pure, clean water system on the Cedar River; if the Olmsted brothers said in the 1900s, we "can't" build a remarkable parks system; if City Light Superintendent J.D. Ross said we "can't" build a major hydroelectric system on the Skagit River in the 1920s and 1930s? Where would we be if civic activist Jim Ellis said we "can't" clean up Lake Washington or build a Metro bus system in the 1960s and '70s?

We wouldn't be in Seattle. In each case, the people of this city answered the challenge: "Yes we can." It may be hard, but it is worth it.

That's because we are not a city of diminished expectations. We don't just "make do." We make better. We look to the future. When we see a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, we act.

Replacing the unsafe viaduct with a tunnel would reconnect Seattle to its gleaming waterfront. It would give us the opportunity to transform our front door into a larger, livelier gathering place for all, where the rhythms of city life would meet the natural beauty of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. Gone would be the roar of traffic from above and the oppressive gray wall that mars the face of our beautiful city.

This isn't just a nice-to-have idea for Seattle. This kind of public space is vital if we are going to continue attracting new jobs, new families and new opportunities. It will help us absorb growth in our center-city neighborhoods instead of sending it sprawling into the suburbs, where it will clog our roads and consume our forests.

The viaduct must go. It is damaged. It is dangerous. We cannot afford to wait for the next earthquake to do the job that must be done: Tear it down. The question before us is how do we replace it?

No matter what choice we make, it won't be cheap. A tunnel will cost $4 billion. But building another double-decker highway is no bargain — it will cost some $3 billion.

We have a decision to make. But it isn't between a tunnel and double-decker highway on the shores of Elliott Bay. It is whether we follow the example of previous generations who dreamed of a wonderful city and then built toward it, or listen to the chorus of "can'ts."