In an election Tuesday on how to replace Seattle's viaduct freeway, city voters decisively said no to both a new elevated freeway and a costly tunnel.
The tally is a relief, yet the impact is far from clear. Here are a few quick observations:
-- There's no agreement on what it means. On KIRO radio, the leader of the campaign for a new elevated freeway said "the election was rigged." Bizarrely, he said the 70 percent of voters who rejected the tunnel actually wanted a rebuild and pledged to fight anything but a new viaduct. Voters were against both choices but still want something to be done.
-- Several key politicians lost. Gov. Chris Gregoire insisted on holding the election but then tried to force a bigger elevated freeway, damaging her standing in Seattle. House Speaker Frank Chopp is out of step for fiercely pushing the plan, though voters in his district overwhelmingly opposed it. And Mayor Greg Nickels' pet tunnel was rejected soundly. Except for Councilman Peter Steinbrueck, who helped lead opposition to both, members of the city council look weak for not taking a stand.
-- Voters are rightly upset. The election cost roughly $1 million yet generated no clear result. Citizens correctly expect representatives to take a stand and know they can express their approval or disgust with their representatives' decisions when they're up for election. Voters should remember who forced this wasteful vote on them.
-- Compromise may finally be possible. Maybe all the political players are so wounded that they can check their egos in order to develop a new solution that costs less and concentrates on moving people and freight instead of vehicles.
I'm afraid the outcome will be more gridlock. Imagine a small earthquake shifting the existing viaduct a few inches and a state engineer declaring the highway unsafe. Then the highway would be closed and Seattle would have to cope without either the improved transit or street system that we could have begun developing by now.