Duel of the scary Viaduct videos
The Washington Department of Transportation has posted a scary "what-if" video of what would happen to the Seattle waterfront in the event of a quake that was just a little closer and longer than the 2001 Nisqually quake. You get to see how things are predicted to come apart: an Alaskan Way Viaduct that pancakes in sections and a seawall collapse that pulls parts of the waterfront away from the shore and collapses structures along the piers. Some question why the video is being posted now, and whether it's part of an election scare tactic that will help mayoral candidate Joe Mallahan, a tunnel proponent.
On the other side, the Mike McGinn mayoral campaign, which once vowed to stop the tunnel but now maintains it will focus on criticizing the project's funding viability, unveiled a new campaign ad that suggests the tunnel will be a fiscal disaster. Comparing it to Boston's Big Dig and other boondoggles, the TV ad estimates huge cost overruns are likely, as much as $15,000 per Seattle household. It asks whether voters are willing to risk that much in voting for Mallahan.
Both are partly based on realities we live with every day: There will almost certainly be another major quake in Seattle someday, and virtually all large engineering projects go over original budgets.
Seattle isn't the only place where impending disaster has been hot politics: In the King County exec race, Susan Hutchison and Dow Constantine have argued over who is doing enough to prevent major flooding in the south county this year as communities beef up levees and plan for a possible dam failure. Hutchison has said she'd call in the Marines, and Constantine declared October "Flood Awareness Month"!
Call this the FEMA election.
Comments:
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 4:52 p.m. inappropriate
Since the city of Seattle has 300,000 households, is McGinn REALLY suggesting that the project will go over by five billion dollars?! He's either clueless or a liar.
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 5:09 p.m. inappropriate
Let's get into that a little more.
First, I should have said 4.5 billion. An absurd figure.
Second, precedent for that sort of price rise is due to many years of delay, major redesigns, etc. Even that clueless study posted in another recent crosscut article didn't suggest overruns on this scale for other tunnel projects.
Third, the real "big dig" is vastly more complex than the 99 projects, with multiple tunnels, some under water, and many times the downtown surface disruption.
Fourth, since much of Seattle's tax base is businesses, presumably they'd shoulder burden too. Much of the business revenue comes from people outside the city, whether commuting workers, or tourists, or business-to-business transactions. Residents would pay much less than he suggests.
Fifth, while the City might end up responsible for minor overruns, does anyone really believe we'd be liable for any overruns on even a tenth of that scale?
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 8:09 p.m. inappropriate
McGinn's projections of overruns might well be a self-fulfilling prophecy if he is elected, which is one more reason not to vote for him and to vote for someone with a can-do attitude instead.
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 8:53 p.m. inappropriate
I'm not sure what the longevity of a tunnel is supposed to be but if it's anything more than a couple of decades it will be flooded as sea level rises. A viaduct, on the other hand, will remain out of the rising sea water for years to come. Putting our money into a tunnel is literally flushing it down a huge toilet.
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 9:10 p.m. inappropriate
mhmiller: Either highway would have problems, and the tunnel might be easier to protect.
If sea level manages to rise a few meters in a few decades, a dike should protect the south portal pretty easily (short distance, highly engineered, no problem). We'd want to do that anyway to protect the south end of Downtown, even if we kiss off Alaskan Way.
Your new viaduct might not fare as well...you'd need to protect the footings along its whole length, meaning much more dike might be needed. Alternatively there might be a way of retrofitting the whole thing to handle having the footings underwater, but there again you're talking huge cost.
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 9:57 p.m. inappropriate
Why doesn't WSDOT show us a video simulation as to how the deep bore tunnel (which voters don't want) would perform in a similar earthquake? If it is built (which is still by no means a certainty, giantkillers do win sometimes) I want to know if tons of seismically liquefied mud will pour inside the tunnel entrances. And that's just assuming that the tunnel's actual structure would withstand the awful event.
Camille Paglia phrased it startlingly well: "Nature shrugs, and Man is lost." A surface-only, ground level solution, with a new seawall and no viaduct or tunnel, is the most manageable and sen$ible one all the way round.
In any case, the smart cities of the future will be downplaying the car thing with an urban park scenario. McGinn seems to understand that better than Mallahan.
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 11:09 p.m. inappropriate
Earthquakes are a big advantage for the tunnel.
Whether Seattle, San Francisco, Kobe, or whatever, viaducts fall over and buildings weaken, but we don't hear anything about tunnels.
After Nisqually, did you hear anything about I-90, the deep BNSF tunnel, or the bus tunnel? Me neither.
Posted Mon, Oct 26, 11:45 p.m. inappropriate
But the bus tunnel wasn't built into a muddy Victorian silt dump which Downtown Seattle is, now was it? When the Next One hits I had rather see us caught with our collective feet on the ground and money in our pockets, for pity's sake. GO SURFACE - NO TUNNEL.
Posted Tue, Oct 27, 12:07 a.m. inappropriate
These cartoons are part of the ongoing, expensive “tear down the viaduct” PR machine now going into a second “spin” cycle to support the Gregoire, Nickels, city council mistake to eliminate one of the only north/south arterials that actually works in this city. The design is a perfect example of a group of blind people describing an elephant. It is a transportation project that has been conceived by public relations people working for real estate speculators. No one knows what the real outcome will be since the agenda had little to do with transportation...just a way to knock the viaduct down.
What is known is that this is the most expensive, most speculative solution that will have less capacity than what we have now. What a bargain. The facts are that the viaduct is not a contiguous structure. The damaged section can be repaired and the rest refurbished with the latest methods for seismic protections, aesthetics, noise abatement, bike and pedestrian amenities, etc. None of this was ever honestly considered. This project will adversely affect the city for decades.
Voters don’t want a tunnel or a surface solution. Hold another honest vote and the choice would be a repaired / restored viaduct. The most recent indication of this is that the current mayor will not be on the ballot in the next election.
Posted Tue, Oct 27, 8:11 a.m. inappropriate
Anyone who thinks a majority of people favor their choice is incorrect by a large margin, or that appears certain based on evidence so far. Further, the voters want to move ahead with the deep bore according to the one real survey ever published...even a lot of people who don't prefer the deep bore.
Quinn, there are many tunnels in similar soil around the world.
I wish some of you were better informed.
Posted Tue, Oct 27, 8:15 a.m. inappropriate
jmrolls, if you're right about the voters, why is Mallahan polling so much better than McGinn, as McGinn clearly knows based on how he's responding?
Less capacity? I believe it's about the same, including a higher capacity Alaskan Way for the local traffic. It's a good balance between capacity and not encouraging more driving.
Posted Tue, Oct 27, 10:33 a.m. inappropriate
Quinn, and others perhaps similarly confused:
The deep-bore tunnel will go under First Avenue, through the same solid soils that the railroad and bus tunnels go through. It is a different route from the old cut-and-cover proposal on the waterfront, which would have been built in fill.
Posted Tue, Oct 27, 10:44 a.m. inappropriate
Again, if you conduct an honest vote between a new or refurbished viaduct, and a tunnel...the tunnel will lose.
As to Mallahan/McGinn polling, all I can assume is that rational people realize that traffic (cars) must still move through that corridor. The tunnel would be the lesser of two evils in that it would move more vehicles than the surface solution originally endorsed by McGinn.
I avoid downtown so I can't comment on your opinions about the mix of transport you prefer for your neighborhood, but the tunnel will not have the capacity of the existing viaduct nor will it serve as effectively as a bypass for downtown.
You might have told Quinn that there are also many modern elevated roadways that are seismically protected around the world.
I will try to stay informed.
Posted Tue, Oct 27, 11:02 a.m. inappropriate
The question to ask is which viaduct replacement option eliminates the threat of catastrophic collapse soonest. The answer there is the Surface/I-5/Transit option.
Advantage: Mike McGinn.
Which tunnel option, Deep-bore or 4-lane cut-n-cover, reduces the threat sooner? The critical factor is the Seawall. The cut-n-cover is a slow-progressing construction process for rebuilding the Seawall. The Deep-bore would most likely finish the seawall first.
However, a 'box' tunnel on the Waterfront would strengthen the soils and prevent major liquification. The cut-n-cover is built in 2-block segments. Each completed segment has less threat of soil liquification.
So, in addition to the 4-lane Cut-n-cover handling traffic much better than the Deep-bore, it also acts as a major soil stabilizer.
Advantage: Mike McGinn
Posted Tue, Oct 27, 11:17 a.m. inappropriate
I wonder which tunnel technology, 'box' cut-n-cover or Deep-bore, is better designed to withstand earthquake forces?
The Deep-bore is a 54' diameter 'segmented' tube with interior bracing for a 2-level 4-lane highway with straight walls and ceiling. Will Deep-bore 'segments' separate under intense pressure?
The Cut-n-cover is a 1-level divided box, solidly cast throughout its length and fixed on bedrock. The Cut-n-cover seems like the stronger technology.
The Deep-bo
Posted Tue, Oct 27, 12:06 p.m. inappropriate
I guess the State is just trying to beat "2012" to theaters. Still, this disaster film is missing something... I know! Don LaFontaine's gravelly voice intoning "In a WORLD where tunnels and bulkheads DON'T EXIST..."
Posted Tue, Oct 27, 12:15 p.m. inappropriate
Sorry guys -- tunnels, including the types this one represents, and with thousands of miles existing in earthquake zones, have an outstanding record in earthquakes. You're grasping at straws.
jmrolls...if you "avoid Downtown", that explains why you want to inflict a new viaduct on us. Several hundred thousand people come Downtown every day, and we're by far the largest economic engine of the Pacific Northwest. I agree that a bypass is needed for regional health. However the tunnel is needed for regional health as well, because so many aspects of our region depend on Downtown being functional as a center for transportation, business, tourism, etc.