Is there a lesson for Vancouver and its municipal election in the recent referendum? No, not the HST. I’m talking about the August 13 Seattle vote on proceeding with a $2 billion tunnel to replace the earthquake damaged Alaskan Way Viaduct along the city’s waterfront.
The 60% of Seattle voters who basically said “do it” were fed up with a decade of political wrangling (including more than 700 community meetings) over what to do about the two-kilometre elevated highway that runs between downtown and Elliott Bay. While there was only minority support for the tunnel, there was also no widespread support for any of the alternatives – rebuilding it, turning it into a surface boulevard or building a huge bridge over the bay. The referendum message was “just move on,” supporting the business leaders and freight haulers who wanted it built even though its $4 tolls are expected to cut present traffic volumes by half.
Voters were also fed up with Seattle Mayor Mike McGuinn, who came into office as a Sierra Club-backed tunnel opponent, but who could never convince the voters there was a better alternative. His approval ratings are now in the ditch.
Replacing the elevated freeway sometime after the tunnel’s expected completion in 2015 will be 22 acres of – stop me if you’ve heard this before – housing, cafés, shops, bike paths and public spaces.
It is tempting to spin a cautionary tale about voter response to the City of Vancouver’s slow but steady move to tear down the 39-year-old Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts and replace them with a surface boulevard and 20 acres of – wait for it – housing, cafés, shops, bike paths and public spaces.
While our viaducts are in relatively good repair (unlike Seattle’s), they serve about a third of all vehicle trips coming into downtown through this “downtown neck,” around 40,000 trips, which is about what the completed Seattle tunnel is expected to handle.
But there are three big differences between the two cities’ viaduct removal plans that suggest that Vancouver’s project will go ahead with no political blow-back.
The first is cost. Back-of-the-envelope estimates suggest Vancouver’s demolition and removal costs would be in the $100 million range, with a wild card cost for cleaning up contaminated soil. Proponents say the freed-up land would add $150 million in real estate value, much of it going to the city. The key difference, of course, is that we won’t be digging a tunnel, only a surface boulevard and some new transit capacity.
And that’s because of the second reason: Vancouver has discovered the Law of Disappearing Traffic – and lived through it, starting with the fight that stopped the freeway that got the viaducts built in the first place. That law says that when streets are blocked to cars, traffic will find another way. It was proven in Vancouver when the viaducts were closed for 22 days during the Olympics and when Cambie Street was slowed to a trickle for many months.
“Nothing fell apart,” said Vancouver city engineer Peter Judd. “There was congestion, but the system functioned.”
The city’s traffic engineer Jerry Dobrovolny is equally confident about removing the viaducts.
“We can mitigate traffic,” he said. “There’s no reason they have to stay.”
And that leads to the third difference between Vancouver’s and Seattle’s viaduct debate: so far at least there are no political or business voices speaking out against removing the viaducts, while a growing chorus of approval is coming from the likes of former city planner Larry Beasley, starchitect Bing Thom and neighbours in Strathcona and Chinatown.
Some candidates in the upcoming municipal election may take this one on as something to oppose, but they would do so at their political peril.
As long as we’ve got our freeways just outside the city, we’ll be fine. •
