Top of the News

Chosen and ranked by Crosscut editors. Click date for previous days.

Mouse over headline for description.

more top of the news

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement


The Crosscut Blog »

Jan 24, 2008 2:55 PM | last updated Jan 24, 2008 3:10 PM
Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle.

Under the Alaskan Way Viaduct on Seattle's waterfront. (Chuck Taylor)

Advertisement
Advertisement

Shaky assumption: An Alaskan Way Viaduct myth is dispelled

By C.R. Douglas

More movement this week on the Alaskan Way Viaduct – literal, not political. State engineers said yesterday, Jan. 23, that the elevated waterfront freeway has sunk another one-eight of an inch since the last check six months ago. In all, it's settled more than 5 inches since they started measuring shortly after the 2001 Nisqually earthquake.

It's like an old man getting shorter. The Viaduct has osteoporosis.

I was always under the impression that the fundamental problem with the highway was its location. It was built on fill, in an area that used to be part of Elliott Bay. That was before the city erected a seawall, threw in some dirt, and moved the shoreline from Western Avenue out to where it is now at Alaskan Way. Atop all that is where the Viaduct sits.

Since loose soil can "liquefy" in an earthquake, the Viaduct will supposedly disappear into oblivion when a major shake hits, just like throwing a rock into quicksand. That's more or less how I've heard the warning over the years.

What I learned just recently, however, after talking with Tom Madden, the state's chief Viaduct engineer, is that the columns are actually quite deep and firmly connected to the "hardpan" soil 65 feet down, well below the "fill" dirt.

Did everyone else know that? Why am I just learning that the Viaduct is on fairly solid footing?

That doesn't mean that the Viaduct wouldn't shake in a major quake, or that a huge amount of "sloshing soil" around the upper part of the columns wouldn't be dangerous. But the relationship between the Viaduct and an earthquake is not as obvious as I always thought it was. I guess I feel slightly better about driving on it.

There are only four columns along the entire central waterfront that pose a problem (out of several hundred). They are the ones that have the osteoporosis. Indeed, when officials talk about the Viaduct sinking, it's those four they are talking about. They sit right near the foot of Columbia Street. The rest of the Viaduct, at least along the water, remains in its original position.

(The portion opposite and south of the stadiums apparently is connected to the fill dirt; plans are now under way to rebuild that portion, even before a Viaduct replacement option is agreed on.)

Right now crews are shoring up the four problem columns, hoping to prevent further sinking. The mystery is why exactly those are the only ones going down. But it doesn't seem to be related to the fill dirt, since they were firmly connected to the hardpan soil when the structure was built. The ones just 60-feet in either direction are doing fine. I would have thought most, if not all, of the columns were a problem until talking to Madden. If all the columns were drifting down together, Madden said, there wouldn't be any bend in the structure nor the resulting cracks.

A big part of the problem with the Viaduct isn't so much how it was constructed in 1953. Sure, the codes have become more stringent. But it's the relatively recent discovery of the so-called Seattle Fault in the 1990s that really shook things up for engineers. It runs along the Interstate 90 corridor, under the stadiums, out to Alki and beyond. In other words, right under the Viaduct. And it's a fault line that is much closer to the surface than the others in the area, which increases the damage it could do. The Viaduct wasn't planned with that problem in mind. It could do devastating damage to the roadway – though, of course, a big shake like that would take a lot of other structures down with it.

So it's not quite as easy as saying that the Viaduct was "built on fill." But we still have a big problem on our hands.

Comments
Conspiracy of silence
Report a violationPosted by: David Sucher on Jan 24, 2008 10:41 PM
CR, if you look further -- such as into the seawall itself -- you'll find other interesting facts which "raise doubts (I am being polite) about the whole brouhaha.

It's obvious that there are other alternatives to tearing-down the Viaduct e.g. strengthening it. But there has been a conspiracy of silence to squelch such discussion. A host of interests -- from Tunnel advocates to the so-called "Surface Option" folks -- absolutely refuse to consider it and blithely and ignorantly talk about "we all know" that the Viaduct will come down etc etc. You ask why? Why should otherwise quite intelligent and rational people refuse to consider simply reinforcing the existing structure? It's simple: Because the safety of the viaduct has never been the real issue -- the real issue has been the desire to remove the viaduct. Safety concerns have been a smoke-screen.

Now there is nothing wrong advocating for removal of the Viaduct. But the argument for that action should be on its own merits and not on trumped-up safety concerns.

Keep up the good reporting. Yours is the very first -- go look at the record -- story I have seen which questions the BS around the Viaduct madness.

Rhetorically one wonders (not!) where the Times and P-I and KUOW have been. (The Stranger's ideological commitment to tearing down the Viadiuct offers clear explanation why it has helped limit the discussion.) Why have they bought into the myth?
Credibility
Report a violationPosted by: dltooley on Jan 31, 2008 10:00 AM
I was once a tunnel sceptic because of the record of recent projects such as the big dig project. FWIW, I think the tunnel may well be the way to go now, when one looks at the big picture - including the highly unlikely possibility of expanding I-5 through downtown in any significant fashion.

The big problem as I see it is the funding - the rest of the State isn't in to subsidizing spoiled loiterers calling themself leadership in Seattle. If you want something you have to pay for it, and having leadership who've earned their positions isn't a bad requirement either.

Tearing down the viaduct to the benefit of nearby property owners (including former Seattle Attorney Mark Sidran) isn't a bad thing, but this article just emphasizes the general problem.

Lastly, the solution. Seattle needs extra north south capacity and the rebuild of the viaduct, as part of a larger plan (including a connection to 520 via the Mercer Mess and Weave), is the best way to do that.

We need all three alternatives - tunnel, surface, and viaduct. A smart look at phasing shows pretty much the only path forward - you start from the bottom and work up - a pretty simple lesson in life.

The viaduct does not need to be torn down for tunnel construction to begin. Start building the tunnel first, with a partial surface planned for the top. Expansion of the surface option should commence with the tear down of the viaduct, but the surface should be designed to accomdate a future rebuilding of the viaduct, if it be needed. That might be fifty years from now, but it will be needed.

So Mark, Utilities and Transportation Chair under 'governor' Gregoire, you might well get a few years of better views, but long term, the historical precedent of the existing viaduct will 'stand'.

And, yes, you are going to have to pay for it. You also need to pay me, though the exact details of that are still up for debate. Do you have a problem paying your bills that you need to respond to with violence?
Viaduct
Report a violationPosted by: Wolbeck4Mayor2009 on Jan 25, 2008 12:34 AM
"Why am I just learning that the Viaduct is on fairly solid footing?"

Because the mayor you "interview" every month is a bold faced liar, that's why.
dispelling myths
Report a violationPosted by: Wolbeck4Mayor2009 on Jan 25, 2008 12:44 AM
"Shaky assumption: An Alaskan Way Viaduct myth is dispelled"

Why has the mayor perpetrated this assumption for years? Maybe you can ask the mayor about that on the next Ask The Mayor, CR.

What other myths might the mayor be perpetrating? Any global-warming myths? Lots of myths about the mayor that need to be dispelled, CR. You're just not the man to do it.
YESBUT
Report a violationPosted by: kieth on Jan 25, 2008 9:07 AM
CRD: If the fault goes through the stadium area then it is located under the surface segment of Highway 99 not the elevated segment. Is that correct?

David: The surface option is slightly less popular than the big, elevated replacement option. If the viaduct is torn down in 2012, as the governor promises, then a new elevated highway is probably what will replace it. You make it sound like us surface option folks are behind all this. Not so. I think the big push is for the replacement.

If it is reasonably safe I would rather take my chances with the existing structure than gamble that the surface option will prevail. I think that is unlikely.
RE: YESBUT
Report a violationPosted by: David Sucher on Jan 26, 2008 4:49 PM
To the contrary, Kieth,

I have communicated at length with Surface Option leaders and supporters and they are universally dismissive of the Repair. Of course none of them are engineers so their opinions are not worth much as to engineering feasibility - but they certainly are sure that "Of course the Viaduct must come down" because, I surmise, that is what they desire to believe.

Tunnel and Surface advocates have all left their commonsense at the door -- because they want a certain outcome.
Not to gloss over or "Eyman-ize" the topic, but...
Report a violationPosted by: hacknflack on Jan 25, 2008 10:14 AM
The key issue as I understand the numerous articles I have read, is HOW the viaduct was constructed. It was NOT built to withstand quakes of the size we now know are in our future. The "new" fault lines are not UNDER the high rise part of the Viaduct, BUT that is not the issue. The point is that the POINT where SHAKING can originate is THAT CLOSE TO the structure. THIS viaduct was built somewhat differently as compared to the one that collasped in SF... BUT IS far more similar than different. We have over 2,200 acres of fill dirt from Marion Street south. Dirt from San Francisco, along with the tops of Beacon and First hills, and from straightening out the 10 some miles of meandering Duwamish to create the last mile and some change before Elliot Bay.

All fill dirt amplifies the motion. Read the USGS first hand reports from one of the geologists who was on Harbor Island in the last shaker. Bottom line, the current structure is the most prone to fail of all the roadway infrastucture in the region, and roadway requirements have changed. (The 520 bridge as it was designed could not be built today - Single hull, stormwater drain into the lake, width of roadways). Those rules are tied to funding. Choose not to follow them and you do not get funds.

I am not a fan of tear down, surface street or replacement. Personally, I would like to see a tunnel dug from where 99 enters the Battery Street Tunnel right under the town, following 6th Avenue, and popping out down by King Street to jump on I-5, but for whatever reason, this option has not been fully explored.

That option allows 99 to continue to be used as we create the new road. Once ready to use, we then tear down the viaduct, and do just surface streets and parkland. You would loose the waterfront exits, but gain speed and function. When you pop out at or near King Street, then you could split exits to I-5, the stadiums, the Spokane street viaduct, and I-90.

But I am just the casual observer.

I still drive the viaduct, but recognize that it is a risk, especially southbound, in a quake. But then, so is most of the Seattle of today.
I didn't know either
Report a violationPosted by: sjenner on Jan 25, 2008 10:58 AM
Hey CR, I didn't realize the columns were on the hardpan either, though in retrospect I think there were some diagrams in the Seattle Times that might have shown that. It certainly wasn't clearly explained though that they were not built on fill.

So this raises an interesting question: if some sort of "surface option" is built on top of fill, would the roadway itself be more likely to stay stable in an earthquake than the roadway of an aerial structure built on columns? Maybe it is safer to be up in the air - other than directly on top of the four sinking columns.
Simple Solution:
Report a violationPosted by: dbreneman on Jan 25, 2008 2:12 PM
Replace the sinking section, seismic-retrofit the rest.
Now, what doses of reality will we get about the 520 bridge "crisis"?
It's a real estate game, CR
Report a violationPosted by: the former Tom Heller on Jan 26, 2008 3:52 PM
Ockham's Razor applies: the Mayor's preference for a tunnel replacement (and to some degree, the surface option too) is motivated by a desire to bring land from 2nd down to the waterfront into dense development. Think condos, hotels, office buildings.

There's huge economic attraction (read: development potential, rents & profits) to replacing a functional & utilitarian but decidedly unattractive 'hair shirt' facility that screens out views to the bay and mountains from lower-slope downtown properties that have seen little investment since WWII.

Whatever replacement choice is just that - a choice. But is it fair for downtown properties to continue receiving huge dollops of the region's taxes to maintain & enhance the value of downtown private property?

A related example of this 'downtown uber alles' dynamic: Sound Transit was designed to provide additional access to downtown. It's costing the region's taxpayers a pretty penny. A back-of-the-envelope calculation translates ST's Phase I program (Sea-Tac to downtown LRT, Sounder commuter rail and Regional Express bus) into a $100,000+ taxpayer-provided subsidy for every office workspace added to downtown office buildings. That's an indication of just how much everyone is being asked to pay into, for the benefit of very few.

The policy question, in my view, is whether adding ever more office space downtown the most economical approach to accommodating growth? Are *we* best served by such an approach? Or might some of those jobs be located elsewhere, where they won't need massive light rail (or viaduct replacement) undertakings? You know -- in locations closer to where people live?
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign up for Crosscut's free weekday newsletter e-mail.
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Crosscut »
Crosscut Seattle is an online newspaper for the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia. It's a guide to local and regional news, a place to report and discuss news, and a platform for new tools to convey news.

• More about Crosscut

Contact Crosscut

Tools

Sign up for Crosscut's daily newsletter
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.

Advertisement


Advertisement


Advertisement