Seattle's waterfront is in political limbo since voters this month rejected replacing the viaduct with new freeways either in a tunnel or overhead. Maybe the idea of a freeway itself is the problem.
Cities from New York to Seoul have replaced freeways without seeing massive traffic jams. In Cascadia, Portland opted for the first MAX line instead of building a new freeway. Vancouver has survived with almost no freeways, yet traffic and sprawl there isn't much worse than in many American cities.
One of the comments on this article correctly points out that cities should be in the business of providing incentives and new options, not eliminating them. That's why adding transit and building more pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods is important.
To get there the author suggests congestion pricing, of course, and a "parking cash-out" system. Here's his definition:
Businesses could be required to give employees commute allowances instead of free parking. Employees could use the allowance to pay for the parking they used to get for free, they could use it to pay for transit, they could keep part of the allowance if they car-pooled to work, or they could keep the entire allowance if they walked or bicycled to work. It is estimated that this policy could reduce commuter traffic (and peak demand for road space) by about 20%.