NYT's Viaduct Coverage? A Mixed Bag
In case you missed it last week, the viaduct debate launched itself into the national spotlight, with The New York Times writing a piece on the increasingly vicious back-and-forth surrounding the proposed deep-bore tunnel that is slated to replace the Viaduct. The article was illuminating for a variety of reasons, chief among them being that it was a preview into how our backyard transit battle looks to those on the outside.
The Times framed the issue in grand, perhaps even hyperbolic terms, with the second paragraph of the article cutting straight to the chase:
“Is the Alaskan Way Viaduct overlooking Elliott Bay on the western edge of downtown just an elevated relic, another old road that needs to be replaced? Or is it something more, a symbol whose fate will help shape not only this city but the rest of urban — and New Urbanist — America?”
But here’s the thing: the problem with symbols is that they tend to over-simplify and polarize debate into a black-and-white issue. Admittedly, this is true to for the viaduct discussion - we can’t think of an issue that’s been more polarizing to Seattle voters in the past few years. There’s a difference between the rhetoric surrounding the deep-bore tunnel and the reality of the situation, however, and by focusing on the former, the Times missed out on the actual complexities of the situation.
Perhaps the biggest flaw of the article was the way the Times covered Mayor Mike McGinn. The article focused heavily on our mayor and his public battles with the Department of Transportation and other elected officials. The Times also portrayed McGinn as the core of the anti-tunnel movement, even going so far as to say that he had the idea to put the tunnel to a public vote.
While it’s true that McGinn and his administration have been at the forefront of the tunnel opposition, the mayor’s office and the anti-tunnel movement are not one and the same. The anti-tunnel referendum currently in legal deadlock gathered around 29,000 signatures to put it on the ballot - significantly more than the 16,503 needed to put it to a public vote. These signatures were not the product of political maneuvering by the mayor, but instead showed a desire by Seattle citizens to have direct input on a project with a huge potential impact on the city. Furthermore, recent polls have shown that a majority of Seattlites disapprove of McGinn as a mayor, but also oppose a deep-bore option, suggesting that the anti-tunnel movement runs deeper than just McGinn and his supporters.
So what, then, fuels the anti-tunnel opposition? The Times article, in our opinion, glossed over some of the most interesting parts of this fight - the motivations. The truth is that reasons for opposing the tunnel are myriad and draw together various communities and groups. One reason that the Times neglected to mention entirely is that this isn’t the first time a tunnel has come up for a vote. In 2007, a tunnel alternative was proposed as a replacement for the Viaduct - a proposition that former Mayor Greg Nickels championed. Voters overwhelmingly rejected the proposal, with 70% opposed. For some Seattle residents, the deep-bore tunnel might feel like more of the same.
Another possible reason is anxiety about cost overruns - an issue that the Times mentioned, but ultimately underplayed. State law suggests that Seattle, rather than the state, will pay cost overruns. In addition, the deep-bore tunnel will contain no exits or entrances through the downtown sector. As a result, many Seattlites are worried that they’ll be left with the check for a project that they see little personal benefit from, in an economic climate that already promises tighter budgets all around.
To be fair, while the Times’ coverage of the tunnel opposition was less than stellar, it remained spot-on in many other aspects. It was correct in its assessment that the future of the Viaduct remains unclear: while a majority of voters don’t support the tunnel, there is no clear consensus on an alternative. It’s also not clear that halting the deep-bore could even be considered a win for Seattle - the delays and legal battles surrounding the viaduct replacement could send costs skyrocketing. In the end, it’s the Times that gets the last word: when Seattle is described as an “ambitious but frequently indecisive city”, it’s hard not to feel the words hit a little close to home.
