|
Cascade Bicycle Club endorses the “Reject” position on Seattle Referendum 1 regarding the deep-bore tunnel. Over the past several years, Cascade has advocated for an Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement that will improve all modes of transportation, including bicycling, in Seattle’s downtown core. The recent release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) by WSDOT leaves the Club with serious concerns about the project as it relates to our mission of Creating a better community through bicycling. Cascade Bicycle Club believes we should spend taxpayer dollars strategically and wisely on a complete transportation network that connects great places to live, work and play. We believe that a viaduct replacement should cost less, create more jobs and move more people by bicycle, by transit and on foot.
The Club has taken the position that any chosen alternative should improve bicycle access to and around the Seattle waterfront. Either a surface/transit/I-5 or tunnel alternative could have achieved this goal. However, when WSDOT changed the purpose of the project from moving “people and goods[i]” in a variety of ways, to providing “essential vehicle capacity[ii]”, we saw a move away from improving bicycle, pedestrian and transit access in favor of improving car capacity.
Since elected officials chose the deep-bore tunnel as the preferred choice, study of how improvements to surface streets, transit and I-5 can accommodate transportation demands has been inadequate. The state’s own traffic model shows that the project would divert thousands of additional vehicles per day directly onto adjacent streets. This produces significant new traffic from SODO, downtown and the waterfront to South Lake Union and does not create bicycle-friendly streets. If the deep-bore tunnel moves forward under the current plan, we question whether there will be funding available to make critical complementary investments that make the areas impacted by the project safe for bicycling and walking.
How did Cascade reach this conclusion after remaining neutral for so long? After the release of the FEIS this month, Cascade sought the opinions of both campaigns on this issue. Cascade board and staff members listened to a presentation and debate by representatives of those campaigns. Cascade Bicycle Club’s legislative committee then discussed whether it was appropriate and necessary for the Club to take a position, and which position to take. Made up of board members as well as policy and planning staff, this committee recommended that the board of directors endorse the “Reject” or “no” position. After much deliberation, Cascade’s board voted to endorse rejecting Seattle Referendum 1.
We believe that the high cost of this project threatens our region’s ability to meet its priorities, whether they are education, human services or transportation. The state’s analysis should better address the real costs and benefits for the people of the Puget Sound region. Cascade will continue to advocate for transportation plans and projects that detail how they will accommodate bicycling as well as other modes of transportation.
The Club appreciates that both members and the general public are torn between their desire to “just build it already”, and their right to express important concerns about how a deep-bore tunnel would affect the future of the Puget Sound region. We also do not diminish the challenge before our elected officials in finding a workable compromise, or the work that professional planners and engineers are doing to solve the challenges with this project. We urge our members to express their vision for a bicycle-friendly future on Election Day and every day. Now may be the final chance for Seattle citizens to have a voice.
Further reading
|
[i] RCW 47.01.402: Alaskan Way viaduct replacement project — Deep bore tunnel option — Funding, accountability, and responsibility.
[ii] Alaskan Way Viaduct Guiding Principles, February 2008
[iii] Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement, July 2011. Page 1, Summary, item 4.
Thank you for this! I heartily agree.
Here is another link for your “further reading” list:
http://citytank.org/2011/07/24/still-not-digging-the-tunnel/
I understand that this was likely a very hard decision for the Club, but, as a member, I do think it was the right one, especially, as you note, given the revised purpose statement of the AWV project.
Thank you for your courageous position.
[...] CBC « Share the Road advisory — RSVP bike events Reject Seattle Referendum 1 [...]
It is interesting that you cherry picked only the opinion artcles that oppose the tunnel. I would expect a more balanced response. Believe it on not, there are reasonable citizens who can debate the isssue without becoming hysterical.
If you don’t build the tunnel, how are all those cars driving through downtown Seattle going to help bicycle traffic? So much for the surface option, as the deep bore tunnel would be a replacement for the vehicles not likely to use a transit alternative (like from Shoreline to SeaTac).
If you do a viaduct replacement, how are all those cars driving through downtown Seattle going to help bicycle traffic during the reconstruction. The deep bore tunnel is the only replacement option that allows the current viaduct to remain in place during the rebuild.
The only arguments that oppose the deep bore tunnel that seem to make sense on the surface are those arguments forgets that this is State Route 99, serving a much larger region and area. It isn’t only a city street or only a city matter.
You guys are kidding, right? It took a bicycle club until the end of July to decide to become anti-tunnel? I wish I was wrong, but as I see it, your position is too little too late. What is your next position, issuing a statement that Gore actually received more votes in Florida than were counted?
Great news from CBC! I was hoping we’d hear from you about this issue. Clearly a tolled tunnel that dumps traffic onto surface streets will not help cycling – especially one with no funding for transit.
Thanks for what must have been a tough and courageous stance.
Thank you for taking a stand on this important issue. Your leadership on transportation solutions that meet the goals of Seattle and its bicycling community are needed and appreciated. I’m a long time cyclist and avid cycle tourist who is relatively new to Seattle, the tunnel issue has engaged me and your endorsement brought me to this blog. Next stop, http://www.cascade.org/about/membership.cfm
Thanks,
Michael
Thanks you so much for the work that you’re doing and for coming out against the Tunnel! I’m a fairly recent transplant from Portland, where I was an all-weather (and I mean ALL weather) cyclist commuter for 5 years. I’m still getting my cycling legs in Seattle and hope that I won’t have to deal with all the congestion caused by people trying to avoid the tolls on the tunnel.
I’ll get out there yet. Thanks again for doing the right thing, even if it’s not always easy to buck the establishment. Ride on!
This year I made my first donation to CBC. I chose to support Cascade specifically because of your leadership in the community on policy and activism. Being involved with the Protect Seattle Now campaign, I realize this was a difficult decision and that you, like so many other progressive organizations, could have chosen to not endorse and remain neutral. Which is why I am so proud and grateful for your willingness to reject the status quo. Thank you all for your leadership, and I promise to keep supporting CBC because you are a voice of reason and progress in my community.
[...] an emphasis on why the bored-tunnel project doesn’t improve conditions for bicyclists – hence our position on Referendum 1. More specifically, I will illustrate how the bored-tunnel makes bicycling less safe and [...]
I am disappointed by CBC’s stance on this issue. I cycle to work downtown from the north end, and my boyfriend is a small business owner who frequently has to travel “through” downtown to his suppliers in the south end. We both support the tunnel option. Bob Chapman, thanks – I agree with you completely.
Anything to get the more cars off the surface streets works for bicyclists. The viaduct is a state highway, open your bicycle blinders and look at other cities, Portland removed theirs and haven’t look back, no regrets, San Francisco , well mother nature removed that one, flattened a bunch of people, and guess what, the SF has not built another one.
I will miss the sunset views on the top deck, but that is not going to make me want to keep the ugly thing, or its even wider (20+’) and more ugly replacement.