The tunnel solution for the Viaduct is too risky
It might work, but we shouldn't be banking on it. Better to implement a rerouting traffic plan and then take the Viaduct down first, giving time for more complete studies and finding the money for the tunnel.
In Groundhog Day fashion, the deep-bore tunnel option to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct on Seattle’s waterfront keeps showing up. But let's be real: The deep-bore tunnel will take longer, cost more and do less than proponents admit. The engineering, funding, and political hurdles it faces are immense. Chances are that Mayor Greg Nickels, County Executive Ron Sims and Governor Chris Gregoire will all have departed the scene before the first dirt is shoveled.
By default or by design, the Viaduct will come down, and we desperately need interim traffic solutions to be in place before it does. The traffic workarounds should have been done by the City years ago. Plans exist. They should be undertaken now with removal of the Viaduct to follow.
Linking Viaduct removal to the opening of the deep-bored tunnel idea only delays the inevitable and increases the danger. Better to bring the structure down in controlled fashion than to let it pancake onto the politicians and innocents beneath it. Once that’s done perhaps a more honest assessment of the technical challenges will be complete, the true costs known and ample funding (perhaps) secured. But don’t bet on it. Despite Nickels, Sims and Gregoire’s showy proclamation of unity (faintly tinged with the unmistakable scent of political desperation) the deep-bore tunnel is nowhere near a sure thing.
Here’s why. Project costs were "estimated" before adequate engineering has been done; that in itself is a multi-year process as Mayor Nickels admitted on a recent call-in program. The promised funding package is an ungainly hodgepodge that leans heavily on state budgets now made shaky by the $6-8 billion deficit engulfing Olympia. The hope of money raining down from federal stimulus packages is hazy at best and probably too little to get the job done in any case.
But won't it be funded by (wildly unpopular) vehicle taxes or tolls spun as "user fees"? Not likely as the public comes to understand that the tunnel would reduce traffic capacity while simultaneously eliminating road connections to downtown. Meanwhile, in Olympia the keeper of the Legislature's purse strings, House Speaker Frank Chopp, waits in the wings dreamily sketching plans for his own whimsical Skyway to the Future — With Houses Underneath!
My father Tyman Fikse was an expert who invented many tunneling technologies and spent his career designing massive tunnel boring machines (TBMs) for projects around the world. If there is one thing hanging out with "sandhogs" as a kid and riding muck trains miles in the dark deep below ground taught me, it is this: The earth will surprise you.
Consider: The ground between preliminary core samples can change most unexpectedly. Geologic pressures are enormous. Tunnel liners shift and spring leaks. Gases escape — or worse. The best hard-rock boring machine will become gunked-up to a standstill if it is surprised by a section of sand or clay. Stuff happens.
Deep tunnels are marvels of engineering that are also among the most difficult projects to plan in advance. To pretend otherwise is delusion. Remove the blinders and the real-world cost of the deep-bore tunnel will easily be double the current guess of $2.8 billion. Factor in the State Department of Transportation’s history of managing large projects (recall the record-setting final bill for the I-90 lid), and one gets a sense of the enormity of the challenge.
Given all this, I believe a better path forward would be to break the Viaduct solution into distinct chunks that can be accomplished in stages, starting right now. First, the City must get going on a Viaduct-free future by implementing the most ambitious interim traffic workaround plans it already has on the books. Second, the Viaduct needs to come down as soon as traffic workarounds are in place.
Simultaneously, we can let the tunnel process play itself out as far as it will go, fast or slow. Then, if the deep tunnel plan falls apart, we will need the best possible Plan B ready to go. Either of the two options the Viaduct Stakeholders Group was preparing to recommend (a pure surface plus transit verion or a new, lower viaduct) could fit the bill.
Worst would be, when the deep tunnel fails to materialize, that we would leave a further degraded Viaduct intact. That wouldl be viewed as an unconscionable failure of leadership by the politicians who forced the deep tunnel to the top of the agenda.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Mon, Feb 16, 8:30 a.m. inappropriate
You have the right idea, in that we need to secure a dependable transportation corridor while other solutions are vetted out. But, you overlooked the most obvious alternative that works the best for our community interests.
That is, RETROFITTING the Viaduct to eliminate the public safety risk which would cost under $1 billion (including the seawall replacement).
Even WSDOT has said the Viaduct can be RETROFITTED for less than replacing it. And the Viaduct Preservation Group, headed by renouned Structural Engineer Vic Gray, has presented the way to do it without disrupting traffic volumes and speeds during construction.
While Seattle would like it gone for urban design reasons, the States first priority has to be protecting the transportation corridor with at least the same volumes and speeds and access/egress points. The RETROFIT does just that. The Tunnel doesn't.
As we have all witnessed, our multi-level governments, after 9 years since the earthquake, are still fumbling in the dark. Had Gary Locke acted expediently after the Quake, and declared an emergency so the risk could be easily repaired through RETROFITTING, we would all be doing other things now than being trapped in this not-so-merry-go-round of political infighting and have truths.
We don't need new taxes or tolling if we proceed now with the RETROFIT. It can be under construction within months, and finished in 3 years. And, we can use our urban design talents to make the Viaduct a better neighbor to the waterfront through the relocation of the undernerath parking strip to new adjacent gasrages and replacing it with pedestrian activities and small scale commercial opportunities. In true Seattle fashion, we could create a "Covered" Promenade from the Pike Place Market to the Stadiums. With repaving the roadbeds, we can reduce the noise by 50% and or glaze in the lower deck.
Come on! Let's really get real!
RETROFIT the Viaduct NOW and then, if others still want to, plan the harborfront until the cows come home. That way, we will protect our transportation corridor first.
Art
Posted Mon, Feb 16, 9:04 a.m. inappropriate
I have yet to hear an explanation of how you can take the traffic from a 6-lane state highway, dump it onto Seattle's surface streets, and come away with anything other that complete gridlock. Retrofitting the viaduct is the only sane solution to this problem.
Posted Mon, Feb 16, 10:54 a.m. inappropriate
WSDOT, SDOT and King County traffic engineers all agreed that the surface/transit/i-5 solution would handle the traffic just fine.
Here's the explanation -- some street grid improvements, some more transit, improve throughput on 1-5, and it all adds up. Pretty simple really.
Posted Mon, Feb 16, 12:42 p.m. inappropriate
In other words, turn Downtown streets into highways, making Downtown far less pedestrian-friendly and far more dangerous.
To address a misconception often heard, the deep bore tunnel gives the same through-capacity to Aurora as the current tunnel, plus some because it has a breakdown lane. It doesn't need to be six lanes, because the Downtown and Magnolia users will exit sooner.
It's true that more study is needed to define cost. That's also true of the aerial, surface, and retrofit options, where the design work to-date is a little farther along but still very rudimentary and presumptive. The vast majority of design (and most of the site investigation) happens after a concept is chosen.
It'll be interesting to see what the actual prices will be compared to estimates. These days, bids are frequently double-digit percentages below public agencies' estimates. For example, the other day the renovation of Fire Station 2 in Belltown came in at $7.081m vs. the City's estimate of $8.584m.
Posted Mon, Feb 16, 12:42 p.m. inappropriate
"WSDOT, SDOT and King County traffic engineers all agreed that the surface/transit/i-5 solution would handle the traffic just fine.
Here's the explanation -- some street grid improvements, some more transit, improve throughput on 1-5, and it all adds up. Pretty simple really."
Simple? Simplistic is a more accurate description. For example, how exactly do you improve throughput on I-5?
Retrofit is best option.
Posted Mon, Feb 16, 1:10 p.m. inappropriate
I am all for sanity in spending, but it is important to remember that a billion dollars later, a retrofit would still not extend the life time use as long as new constuction.
As new technologies in transportaton, environment and growth of the region, I am not convinced the retrofit would prove sustainable for even 3 decades, givin what we learn daily about how seismic the region is, and how growth continues here.
Sadly, the goals of building for generations to come has come down to what can be done in the fewest budget cycles, and we did not make it easier by removing funding sources like toll boths once projects were paid for.
Imagine Seattle if we had not wasted tax dollars regrading the hills, or building the watersystem. We had enough water with springs, yet went ahead with the expense of pipes from the Cedar River.
Trains could have run the length of the waterfront, but RH Thompson insisted on a Tunnel under Seattle at the UNHEARD of cost of a million dollars.
Lacey Murrow pushed to build the world's first fresh water concrete floating bridge, yet at the time Ferryboats would have been more than adaquate. (We could RETROFIT them!)
And what a silly thought to build up Bow Lake airport instead of Retrofitting Boeing Field.
100 years ago, even 50 years ago, people taxed themselves to build a better place. Did we really need Metro to clean up Lake Washington? Did we REALLY need a Second floating bridge, and third? Why not Retrofit just the one bridge?
The point is NONE of the big projects came at a "good time". But we sure have a better place because we did.
Would a retrofit of the Viaduct be the best way to spent a billion dollars, or are we thowing good money after bad? I don't know... but I do know this after four generations of my family being here, we are not the first to ask these kinds of questions.
It DOES seem that many appreciate and make use of what we built when the decision to take on the tougher, larger answers.
I have a book with a Seattle map from 1910 that shows a dotted line from Seattle to downtown Kirkland, UNDER Lake Washington and noted as Pending Subway Tunnel. We did not build them all, but we seem to make good use of the ones we did.
Just my observation. I still want to see budgets.
Posted Mon, Feb 16, 2:05 p.m. inappropriate
Let me set you straight on the common sense of RETROFITTING. Everyone involved in engineering design has said the the Viaduct can be RETROFITTED for a very long term use.
We all use the same criteria for addressing the design of the fix. Remember, seismic safety is to protect life not property. We want everyone to walk away from the next shake.
The Viaduct has successfully survived several major earthquakes in it's 58 years of existance. And we still use it 9 years after the Nisqually. Yes, there was evidence of settling in one area near Colman dock. That settling was evident before the quake. WSDOT did the right thing and fixed it. DONE.
Back in '89, when the earthquake occured in San Francisco, we all sent our engineers there to learn from the distruction. WSDOT came back, wrote a report presented it to the Highway Commission and the legislature with a price tag of $300 million for the retrofit. Guess what? Nothing was done. So, it isn't a surprise that some damage was incurred. The good news is that the damage was minimal with no injuries or loss of life. WSDOT has been irresponsible in not maintaining the Viaduct. And it's behavior to allow it to rot could suggest a conspiracy to have it taken down. This was always driven by aesthetics. Gambling with our lives is NOT protecting the publics health, safety and welfare. Shame on them.
But, here we are, with a transportation problem that is spinning out of reach, control and practibility. Seattle stuck it's head into the State's tent and has distorted the transportation problem into a waterfront urban design problem. And, they want the State and the Citizens of the state to pay for their wasterfront improvements if the Tunnel goes through.
Gee, perhaps all the other cities of the state should operate like this?
Those of us who support the RETROFIT are not off our rockers. We have responsibily considered the WSDOT criteria and just after the Quake came up with the best solution that meets ALL of them. Let me relist them:
Stay within the $2.4 billion budget
Maintain traffic volumes and speeds and access/egress points equal to todays.
Start as soon as possible
Have the shortest construction period.
Cause the leat amout of disruption during construction
The RETROFIT is the only alternastive that fits!
I rest my case!
We have a long history of fixing things rather than replaceing them.
Pioneer Square, Pike Place Market, Old Ballard, International District, Columbia City etc., all are safe and add to our cities characeter. So does the Viaduct and it provide us the only world class panoramic view. Bu the wayu, WSDOT removed the "scenic route" signs from the top deck.
I don't see waterfront businesses doing poorly or the sidewalks along the waterfront bare and desolate because the hyperbole says "it cuts us off from our waterfront". It was designed to reconnect to the waterfront in a very innovative and creative way by putting the roadways up in the air to allow full pedestrian circulation on the ground. IT WORKS!
So, by not creating more problems that will spin out of range and provide us less travel volumes. let's just fix it and get on with the major problems of the city and State like, jobs, healthcare, affordable housing, better schools and safer streets.
Do the right thing!
Art
Posted Mon, Feb 16, 2:05 p.m. inappropriate
Under any of the non-bore tunnel options, you'd be faced with 3-4 years of no viaduct (with the bored tunnel, the gap is months in later 2015). Those 110,000 cars would be going to I-5 or city streets in search of an option. That is a cost that was not added in to the surface or the replacement or, for that matter, any of the other options. In addition, any replacement option would need to be replaced again in 50 years, while the tunnel lasts twice as long, another difference not factored in to the cost.
The reason the bore tunnel is only 4 lanes is that one would hit the next price point to go wide enough to accommodate 6 lanes. The wider structures are operational in many other parts of the world.
The reasons the # of vehicles accommodated is similar is: (1) there are no mid-way access points, e.g. Seneca Street, to slow down traffic; (2) the lanes are wider than the present 9 feet wide lanes; (3) there are more options, i.e. Alaskan Way will become a true arterial in the footprint of the existing viaduct, something it is not presently, and improvements to the Spokane Street corridor - presently underway - and the Mercer Street corridor (i.e., a straight shot in both directions between I-5 and the Seattle Center, and connections between the street grids west of SR 99 and east of that roadway that don't exist now) are part of this ; (4) transit will be beefed up.
The bid for Sound Transit's tunnel north of downtown was under their target/budget. This has been typical of late. It will be interesting to see how this bored tunnel option proceeds. I'm glad the politicians finally made a decision, and I'm cautiously optimistic it will succeed. No looking back in the meantime.
Posted Mon, Feb 16, 3:36 p.m. inappropriate
Sounds like Viet Nam all over again!
Posted Mon, Feb 16, 4:50 p.m. inappropriate
"The best hard-rock boring machine will become gunked-up to a standstill if it is surprised by a section of sand or clay."
Matt is confused, there isn't any hard rock under Seattle - the boring machine will be the kind used for the glacial till that we have here. The cost estimate in fact assumes that 70% of the bore will be through loose sand/silt, which is excessively conservative and has inflated the cost (not the other way around). Once sample borings are made, that number will certainly be adjusted downward, since the other common material is clay, which is an excellent boring medium (another factual error in Matt's statement).
Posted Mon, Feb 16, 6:15 p.m. inappropriate
Unter has a good point. In this case I was attempting to illustrate the point generally that conditions can change dramatic from what is expected beforehand - it happens quite a bit in tunnel construction. Another way to have put it would be to say that a TBM designed for a certain clay or till condition can also be surprised when it encounters something else.
Posted Mon, Feb 16, 7:46 p.m. inappropriate
Let's study this while we attempt the surface option, uh, I mean we take down the viaduct before it falls on a bus load of children.
Posted Tue, Feb 17, 8:34 a.m. inappropriate
The proposal to improve throughput on I-5 was to remove a couple of downtown exits to gain a lane. That would also improve flow on the downtown streets. One can also increase throughput by giving transit a little more priority on the express lanes.
We also know that transit works -- commuter buses are full right now. The only thing keeping us from more riders is better service.
Finally, believe it or not, the amount of driving has started to trend downwards.
So we are proposing to spend billions on something that people will do less of in the future, and starving transit that people want to use right now.
Sometimes a problem is better solved with a set of pragmatic solutions that can be adjusted to meet the need, rather than one big inflexible investment. Or, let's not put all our eggs in one very expensive and risky basket.
Posted Wed, Feb 18, 11:45 a.m. inappropriate
I'd suggest that transit would have vanishingly little impact on the volume of traffic currently traveling on the viaduct. Most people take that route to avoid downtown Seattle, not to access downtown Seattle. Proposing transit as a solution would have motorists park one car in Queen Anne, hop a bus, then switch to their other car in Georgetown. Doesn't make much sense. Like it or not, transit is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Automobiles will continue to be most people's primary appliance of mobility for the foreseeable future; and even if people drive less, the population around Seattle will continue to grow.
Posted Thu, Feb 19, 11:48 a.m. inappropriate
The tunnel can have two lanes instead of three because, without downtown entrances or exits, it will only need to replace the two-thirds of the trips on the Viaduct that are through trips - people bypassing downtown.
So what will be available for the other 30,000 plus daily trips that either originate or terminate downtown?
The surface solution is madness. I commute either by car - on the Viaduct - or by scooter - along the waterfront - and there is no way that the viaduct traffic can go on the surface streets there. You can either imagine it as the viaduct traffic racing along the waterfront or as the waterfront's traffic lights and crosswalks on the viaduct. It's crazy.
Also crazy, of course, is how northbound I-5 contricts to two lanes as it goes under the convention center. Maybe it would be better if there were no exit to Seneca Street and that exit only lane continued. I know it would be better if the Distributor/Collector started back at Spokane Street. Then drivers from West Seattle wouldn't have to merge with the mainline until they got to downtown and they wouldn't have to slow to a stop as they entered the freeway.
It's unclear to me how traffic planners can fail to notice that nothing slows down highway traffic so much (or causes as many accidents) as people changing lanes - which includes merging. Every chokepoint features an exit only lane or some other element that requires a lane change. Why don't they work to reduce or eliminate the need for lane changes? Instead, they seem to delight in them.
Posted Sun, Feb 22, 1:41 p.m. inappropriate
To coolpapa
You are right that we could improve 1-5, which would handle some of the through trips now taken on the Viaduct.
To dbreneman -- transit does not need to handle every viaduct trip, it needs to handle some of them. A lot of cars come on and off at or near downtown, so a good chunk of the traffic could use transit.
As for the surface streets, we closed 3rd Avenue to autos at the peak hours, yet the surface streets still worked as well as before the closure. That's because some people can change time of day or destinations to avoid congested streets. The same is true for users of the viaduct.
All the DOT's that supported the viaduct stakeholder process agreed that the surface/transit/I-5 solution worked. And traffic engineers are a tough bunch to convince on anything but a capacity solution.
The tunnel supporters are stuck on believing that auto capacity is the only solution that can work. That's kind of like believing in the 70's that our only energy solution was to build expensive nuclear power plants. Or believing that the solution for gas prices today is "drill, baby, drill." C'mon, we're smarter than that. Given today's economy, a set of smaller more pragmatic solutions beats the big expensive, risky tunnel project.