Build a New Viaduct

 To the left  is a picture of the  Millau Viaduct.  The Millau Viaduct was recently opened in France at a cost of about $500 million, so it stands to reason the such a structure could be built in Seattle for much less than the $2.4 billion the State of Washington has already committed to the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement without costing Seattle anything.

Washington DOT Option 8 is similar, but uses only small cable stays and a thicker and more obtrusive concrete base, rendering it much less attractive than a fully cable-stayed structures such as the one pictured above.
 

Option 8 should be further improved.  Instead of just leaving a noisy asphalt slab on top, lets locate 1200 units of modern housing on top of a lid over the roadway, as depicted in the conceptual drawing below.

In the Alternative, Consider an Affordable Tunnel under Western Ave

Seattle P-I Oct. 11, 2006  There's a cheaper, better way to replace the viaduct

A COSTLY TUNNEL NOT THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR ALL
'Working Families Deserve Better'

9/22/2006  3:06:00 PM

SEATTLE - Council President Nick Licata and Councilmember David J. Della issue the following statements in response to today's decision by a majority of councilmembers to recommend to the state that the tunnel is Seattle's preferred alternative for replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Councilmember Della, an advocate for rebuilding the Viaduct as an elevated structure with available funds and a supporter of an advisory vote on the issue, stated, "I don't think that we can comfortably say that the most expensive and unaffordable option is the preference of the people of Seattle. We had an opportunity to gauge the public's opinion by floating an advisory measure and should have done so. I think tunnel advocates were just too afraid to discover that a majority does not support pricing working families out of our city all in the name of better views. Working families deserve a choice and they deserve an alternative that is affordable."

Council President Licata, who sponsored legislation that would have put an advisory measure with cost estimates on this November's ballot, added, "Tunnel vision is taking our city deeper into a black hole of insufficient revenues and unknown costs. The tunnel is the most expensive option and will be the most expensive project in the history of our city. The fact that a tunnel will dry up so much of our revenue should have been the driver of our discussion-not aesthetics."

Unlike Councilmembers Della and Licata, my opponent rubber-stamped the Mayor's foolish Big Dig-style tunnel.  We do need a new seawall, but its a relatively minor expense ($200 million) and should be a separate issue from the viaduct replacement.

Besides, what if there is an earthquake or terrorist attack during rush hour and the underwater tunnel flooded?  Everyone would drown; it seems more life-threatening than an above-ground viaduct.