Today's Seattle Times reports: "Engineer brings plan to brace viaduct to marine coalition". Retired structural engineer Victor Gray says:
the viaduct could be braced to withstand a 500-year earthquake at a cost of about $800 million, including replacing the Alaskan Way Seawall. That's a fraction of the $2.5 billion to $4.5 billion the state said replacing the viaduct, or putting it in a tunnel, would cost.Government agencies, which often prefer more interesting and expensive pork-laden projects when they can get away with it, dismiss Gray's analysis:
In disputing Gray's figures, [state DOT viaduct project manager Ron] Paananen said the cost of fixing the viaduct would be about 80 percent of the rebuild cost. "Does that make sense?" he asked.Good point. Meanwhile, in this email forwarded to us by reader M.W., Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels says his heart is firmly set on the magnificently expensive tunnel."Absolutely," said one audience member. "It doesn't shut us down."
UPDATE: David Sucher has some thoughts about the Viaduct options
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 14, 2006 11:59 AM | Email ThisThey never think about the economic impact of what they do. You only have to look at how often Seattle tears up downtown during peak tourist season to verify that.
Tearing down the viaduct will have a tremendous impact on the city. Just think back to when the earthquake closed it. Productivity nearly came to a halt because of gridlock on surface streets.
Posted by: BV on April 14, 2006 12:19 PMThere's no comparison with the Embarcadero structure in San Francisco because it was never a thoroughfare when it was torn down. The Alaskan Way viaduct is a major artery and its loss will have a big impact on the downtown area, and especially the key tourism areas, while it is out of service.
Nickels is blinded by his emotion. As much as a tunnel and park would be nice, they will cost far too much and cause far too much disruption. The much better option is to repair what we have and then plan for any future park, etc. in a much longer term and more systematic and fiscally sound manner that does not involve the emotion and expediency of an earthquake retrofit.
Nickels notes that the cost of replacing deteriorating roads is five times greater than maintaining them. Why would the viaduct be any different? The costs for relocating the existing utilities in the Alaskan Way cooridor alone would be a huge part of the cost of a tunnel or rebuild option and one that Nickels indicates will be borne by taxpayers of Seattle.
Nickels' own logic indicates that a retrofit is the far better option.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 14, 2006 12:31 PMFolks that tunnel is not feasible from an engineering point of view BUT that is the goal...the designers must know that but like science nowadays Doug McDonald/Nickels/Sims made up their minds to tear down the AWV without replacing it and this is the strategy...make up fake plans then tear down the viaduct get caught in the mud and slop of the old fills for 2 years then have Joel Connelly write a story from Whidbey Island about ending the Seattle suffering, blame Tim Eyman and I-695, the contractor and the engineer then sue them and put up a tent city...bingo!!!
And you think the monorail had a funding problem...they ran the clock out on that thing by jacking the scope through the roof and therefore the price. It was populist and clashed with the Transit folks across town. It did not line consultant, lawyer and contractor pockets. It hurt transit union jobs outlook.
If it does not have Sound Transit's logo on it it is EVIL and the AWV is EVIL. Your car and even you are evil!
Just think of all the extra money that they could charge for space rental with the new view property created.
Which in turn means increased tax revenue to the state and local governments.
(always a plus, in liberal Deomcrats eyes)
Actually Jeff, it's not so expensive when you consider it's someone else's money. From his letter:
We are a city of the future and should not tolerate a larger and more disruptive freeway blocking Seattle's waterfront for another 50 years. And...
Almost all of the funding for the new tunnel would come from state and federal (not city) sources.
Disruption is not an unfortunate side effect. Disruption is the point.
Posted by: South County on April 14, 2006 03:24 PMThis was their idea in a nutshell.
Not to be done in this order but the result would be desireable.
1) Remove the viaduct. It is an eyesore & ruins the otherwise GREAT potential our waterfront has for a beautiful tourist spot (to say nothig for us locals.)
2) Remove the convention center and freeway park currently on top of I-5. maybe this wouldnt be completely necessary)
3)Piggy back a new stretch hwy-99 on top of I-5 for that span through downtown.
4) Build another convention center over the waterfront.
5) Create new destination foot ferrys from the waterfront and develope destinations on nearby Puget Sound - like they did in Sydney Australia
Posted by: roofdoggie on April 14, 2006 06:17 PMHe is NOT even remotely a crank, though Nickels and Company will try to paint him that way.
Posted by: Raw Data on April 15, 2006 08:27 AMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002762045_viaduct26.html
Posted by: Raw Data on April 15, 2006 08:29 AMWhy not save all that money for other projects? Because they can always come back to us for more..
What happens to the 110,000 vehicles when the viaduct is down? How many of these vehicles are commuters and how many are commercial?
I-5 is already gridlocked. City streets are already crowded.
Seven years to build the tunnel?
Why wasn't priority (as opposed to lip service) given to solutions that would keep the roadway in service as much as possible?
"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
You can't be allowed to accumulate too much money - the government knows far better how to spend it than you do.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 15, 2006 10:50 AMHumans are not even close to being able to cost-efficiently build structures that can endure the forces of the type of earthquake that is imminent in this area.
That is not a rationale for doing nothing, but a reason to try to put this issue into some honest perspective. The thing that amazes me is the absolute denial of those who would build a tunnel in the place of the viaduct and pretend that it would be safe.
Would you be comfortable driving your family into that tunnel? Puts a new meaning on "sleeping with the fishes."
It is also fresh hope for the con artists like Al Gore who sell fake Rolex's, junk bonds, and global warming theory.
Seattleites like the French will buy, eat, or steal anything.
Keep in mind that, with the potential exception of the retrofit, every viaduct replacement scheme includes a loophole to meet Allen's demand for a public-financed lid over the stretch of Aurora Avenue N. that divides his properties on the far side (northbound) of the Battery Street tunnel.
Follow the money.
Posted by: Tria on April 15, 2006 05:01 PMTwo options:
1) Combine 99 with the nearby surface street (I can't recall if this is Marginal or Alaskan Way?) make a limited-access surface street, add medians, set the speed limit to 40, and build pedestrain overpasses. The engineering and construction cost of this would be far less than a tunnel or a replacement cement monstrocity. Why has nobody suggested this?
2) Build the tunnel, which is honestly a good way to get through a congested area safely. I would argue they need to dig to fix the seawall anyway. Charge a $5-$8 toll with automatic collection technology. It will pay for itself in 40 years. Cheapskates can take I-5 or 4th Avenue.
In fact, put large tolls on 520 and 90 as well. Nobody said people had to commute across a body of water, that is a choice people make.
Posted by: Ben on April 15, 2006 05:05 PMOh...never mind.
LOL
Did this caller mention 'where' and 'how' the transition would be made from existing SR99 alignment to/from I-5?
One could save having to carve out a new alignment between the SR99 corridor and I-5 by simply widening I-5 at the 599/I-5 interchange, blowing a wider I-5 from there to the north side of the convention center, and then just replicate the 599/I-5 interchange on the north side of downtown (perhaps at the 520 interchange..since we're dealing with semi-fantasy here).
I'm not certain what would be wiped out to get back over to the existing 99 corridor -- or, if there is any real benefit to doing so once you've gone that far north along I-5.
And the 'piggy-back' section? Over/under I-5?
"Under" sounds a LOT like the tunnel (without the seawall, but, then like ST's tunnel under "the Hill", some issues of soil conditions through the alignment) in question -- to get under the existing express lanes (or the ST tunnel on the Capitol Hill section of the line).
Over, including getting over the existing overpasses, sounds pretty pricey, too.
(won't even 'go' into replacing the Ship Canal bridge -- if the transition is north of the S.C.)
Widen I-5, instead? Just carve out another 100'+/- feet (assuming 4+ travel lanes plus retaining walls and unobstructed construction easements/right-of-way -- take a look at the topo east of I-5, just north of the WAStCC) of developed real estate?
The one saving grace is that, at some point, I-5 -- itself -- is going to reach the point of diminishing returns for continuing reconstruction/maintenance.
Concurrent with professional activities, I was privy to engineering information associated with the certification of the recent repairs to the Alaskan Way viaduct. Given the limitations accpetable to our current leadership, it is as safe as it needs to be or it would never have been certified. Current discussions about the options and alternatives are incomplete in that they do not honestly reveal accurate assessments of potential geologic events in our area and the relative design criteria that would be necessitated in order to assure safety should any such events occur.
You say, "A tunnel is honestly a good way to get through a congested area safely"? The current rationale for replacing the viaduct in light of a severe earthquake is safety. You actually believe it when they assert that a tunnel constructed directly across a seismic fault below and adjacent to sea level is safe? Wise up. Since you believe that they need to dig to fix the seawall in that area to restore problems associated with geologic instability, what makes you imagine that such a combined geologic vulnerability is an acceptable let alone safe location for a tunnel?
Do you really trust those who are in power to tell you the whole truth about this? In this light, would you honestly be comfortable driving your family into such a tunnel? Do you really think Ron Sims or Greg Nickels are telling you the whole story, or . . . do you just believe it? Why should either start now?
Speaking of realistic alternative routes for traffic lanes, which "tunnel or a replacement cement monstrocity" are you referring to, the Convention Center?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 16, 2006 10:33 AMP.S.
Mind you when I said "limitations acceptable to our current leadership, it is as safe as it needs to be or it would never have been certified" I meant that, given differing estimates of the types of seismic events that are likely to occur in the area, the Alaskan way Viaduct is no more vulnerable than many of the other transportation structures or high rise buildings in Seattle and thus not a significant risk to a relatively significant comparative number of people.
The FACT that NO ONE including Ron Sims, Greg Nickels et. al. are willing to discuss is that no structure can be constructed to withstand a seismic event on the scale that is predicted by the most reliable authorities of the Scientific community GSA. They damned well know this, but they are not saying so.
A tunnel replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct is near to the last safe alternative next to a catapault, much less servicable economically and a hell of a lot more expensive to construct than ANY alternative.
This "tunnel" idea is all in service to Nickels vanity--and certainly not any consideration of safety.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 16, 2006 11:06 AMTraffic problems in Seattle -- keep it 'out of sight...out of mind" by burying it in a four/six/eight-lane seawater detention pipe.
"A tunnel replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct is near to the last safe alternative next to a catapault [sic], much less servicable economically and a hell of a lot more expensive to construct than ANY alternative.
I'm partial to the trebuchet style of siege engine for this use...
The ability for one to hurl vehicles can be seen at:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0I0WfnhVs2s|
I was thinking about safety for the drivers and pedestrians in everyday traffic, I wasn't thinking about the earthquake damage, since preumably any new structure would be built to withstand.
So what is wrong with my first idea of replacing 99 with a surface arterial ?
-Ben
Posted by: Ben on April 16, 2006 03:56 PMNothing.
Good idea, just try to get a liberal to consider it unless it is a bus only arterial (or other mass transit conveyance).
Just watch, that'll be the next thing about the tunnel -- transit only.
Thanks
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 16, 2006 04:36 PMHmmmm, Un-pimp our VolksViaduct?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 16, 2006 04:51 PMJust need a BIG net at the other end. And, another set of trebuchets.
Of course, we could use it to transport people from one end of downtown to the other -- without needing the need for loading up their cars... Then it would be the "VolksViaduct".
Talking an "E"-coupon ride, here, baby. Might even be a municipal revenue source...although there might be some extra demand for those pollution-generating dry cleaners.
But I'm just a gal -- what would I know since "Ohhhhh... Math is hard!"
Posted by: FT on April 17, 2006 04:59 AMProbably.
Maybe he'll build a railroad bridge along the waterfront that has glass floors so you can see the Orcas that Sims is saving swim.
After all . . it's our money.
Just imagine the cost.
Oh $hit, forget it . . . don't give him any ideas.
Right, so he can, in typical Republican fashion, give the land the viaduct once stood on to his developer buddies. See, they want to make their 50% windfall profits building more housing that nobody but the very upper crust can afford. It's just like Halliburton getting all of those exclusive no-bid contracts in Iraq.
Posted by: Critical THINKER on April 18, 2006 02:42 PMRight you bet . . . just like that . . .
If you only knew . . . you'd just deny it
Who cares?
Typical "Republican fashion" huh? Why don't you check which side of the aisle abuses eminent domain in favor of developers. Start with Kelo vs. New London and then get back to us.
Posted by: Palouse on April 19, 2006 07:49 AMWhat planet do you live on, Palouse? Do you have friends, or do you just sit around listening to Rush Limbaugh, the drug addled liar who hates women because they won't sleep with him?
Ask yourself who paid for the freeways you drive on, for the clean air you breathe, for the Social Security and Medicare which helped you not go bankrupt caring for your parents...which party was that? Shut up.
Posted by: Truth Teller on April 21, 2006 07:41 PMP.S., can I have your stuff?
Posted by: Amused by liberal doomsayers on April 21, 2006 09:10 PM