6 ms·

Bertha back on the move after 2 years of delays

57 points by e15ctr0n 11y ago

aaronbrethorst 11y ago
This is essentially Seattle's version of Boston's Big Dig. There are zero guarantees that this won't happen again, no one is willing to say who's on the hook for cost overruns, and there's still no plan about what to do if the viaduct happens to collapse while they're working on the tunnel. Fwiw, I voted against this project, and I will be amazed if it is finished.
- tacos 11y ago
  The project is a fraction of the complexity of the Boston project. And in the advisory vote, Seattle -- in typical fashion -- rejected both options. So everyone gets the benefit of saying they voted against it.
  - techsupporter 11y ago
    But there were so many elections and advisory votes... For instance, the tunnel was approved in an August, 2011 vote: https://ballotpedia.org/Seattle_Viaduct_Tunnel_Replacement_Question_%28August_2011%29 https://ballotpedia.org/Seattle_Viaduct_Tunnel_Replacement_Q... http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/elections/201108/resPage7.aspx http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/elections/201108/resPag...
    - mikestew 11y ago
      That was the weirdest thing about Western Washington politics that I've observed: we'll keep voting until we get the answer we like. If voters refuse to give us that answer, we'll just go ahead and do it anyway. For history, I refer you to stadiums and the monorail, and I'm sure there are others I've missed.
      - x0x0 11y ago
        It just means the important votes aren't the referendums; the important votes are the elections.
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  Big Dig comparisons are common with respect to this project, but it's worth noting that the Big Dig improved traffic flow. The SR99 tunnel is worse than the status quo, with fewer lanes and fewer downtown exits. This means that a successful tunnel project means more gridlock, more pollution, and more wasted time. Our local and state transportation authorities have a political agenda, and transportation is very low on it.
  - dfc 11y ago
    What is the political agenda? Kickbacks from construction contracts? As a someone not from Seattle, this whole debate is remarkably opaque. The linked article requires that the reader is already well versed in the debate and barely tries to recap or read new people in.
    - CamperBob2 11y ago
      Someone else can probably explain it more precisely, but the tunnel in question is needed to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, a multi-deck elevated highway that took some damage in an earthquake over a decade ago. Some authorities have expressed concern that another earthquake of equal or greater magnitude might cause the viaduct to fail like the 1989 Embarcadero collapse in San Francisco, with the potential for significant loss of life. So the decision was made to tear down the viaduct and replace it. Why not reinforce it or even rebuild it in place with modern construction standards? Because the viaduct has another drawback besides its seismic vulnerabilities: it's big and ugly. Its removal would enhance property values along the Seattle waterfront tremendously. Reportedly, the developers who own the affected property are major contributors to the Seattle politicians who have the authority to make the final decision, so fixing the current viaduct was ruled out from the start. It was only a question of which less-effective solution would be adopted. With a rebuild off the table, the remaining options included surface-only streets, with fewer lanes and more traffic lights; a cut-and-cover tunnel, which would completely disrupt traffic in the area during construction; and the solution that was eventually chosen, a deep tunnel through unstable and poorly-characterized soils that would have to be bored underneath major downtown buildings and thoroughfares. The tunnel would have about half of the viaduct's lane capacity, no room for future expansion, and no downtown exits at all, but it wouldn't threaten the all-important view of Puget Sound, and parts of the old viaduct route could remain in use during construction. In other words, it was one of those politically-expedient solutions where lots of other peoples' money would be spent in the process of making very few people happy. Schadenfreude was the best-case outcome, since complaining about traffic is as popular around here as football in Texas or religion in Oklahoma. But we're now looking at one of the worst cases: the engineering behind the tunnel (and/or the $90 million custom machine that drills it) is proving to be inadequate to the job, so essentially no progress toward replacing the viaduct is being made at all. Drivers are fuming, lawyers are salivating, mild-mannered newspaper columnists are discovering their inner muckrakers... and seismologists are frowning and muttering ominously.
- thinkingkong 11y ago
  For someone not well-versed with the alternatives, could you summarize them?
  - mkehrt 11y ago
    In SF, the Loma Prieta earthquake destroyed the Embarcadero highway. It was never rebuilt, but that didn't really cause problems.
    - ak217 11y ago
      The Embarcadero Freeway was not destroyed in the earthquake, although it was damaged. The Cypress Street Viaduct in Oakland collapsed in that earthquake, killing and injuring many people. Although the Embarcadero Freeway was never rebuilt and that greatly improved the waterfront, a lot of the traffic it carried was rerouted along the Central Freeway/Van Ness (GGB bound traffic) or SOMA surface streets, and no adequate public transit was built either, so "didn't cause problems" is arguable.
  - aaronbrethorst 11y ago
    Downtown Seattle features an elevated section of highway, known as the Alaskan Way Viaduct. It dates back to the 1950s, and was heavily damaged during the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. There's no question that it's seismically unsound, and our state DoT put out this simulation a few years back to demonstrate what the next big quake is likely to do to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hos_uIKwC-c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hos_uIKwC-c So, a few options were proposed to replace it: 1. Surface highway 2. Cut and cover tunnel 3. Deep bore tunnel A surface highway is, by far, the simplest option to implement: you knock down the viaduct, and repave the area underneath it (there's already a road under the viaduct—it just needs expansion). The viaduct is a death trap, and it will kill some or all of the people on it when it comes down. There is absolutely no question about that in my mind whatsoever. For that reason, I absolutely refuse to set foot on it. There's going to be political hell to pay when it collapses and Seattleites are re-reminded that there was no reason why anyone had to die on a highway everyone knew was unsafe.
chrismcb 11y ago
One key point, the original completion date was dec 2015, as of today the drilled about 10% and had had several breakdowns.
jroseattle 11y ago
The biggest issue I have with this project isn't the chosen plan -- it's that Seattle waited 20+ years to take action. The 2001 Nisqually quake certainly damaged the 99 bridge, but it was already in a state of constant repair prior to that point. Before then, initiative after initiative was put on the ballot as Seattleites would constantly register their preferences for how to deal with the 99/waterfront area. There have been lots of politics involved over those 20+ years, and if Seattle is really bad at something, it's politics. The project, as poorly planned and estimated as it has been, is actually better than the historic alternative -- doing nothing at all.
- chrismealy 11y ago
  There's a difference between Seattle and Olympia.

57 points by e15ctr0n 11y ago

This is essentially Seattle's version of Boston's Big Dig. There are zero guarantees that this won't happen again, no one is willing to say who's on the hook for cost overruns, and there's still no plan about what to do if the viaduct happens to collapse while they're working on the tunnel. Fwiw, I voted against this project, and I will be amazed if it is finished.

tacos 11y ago
The project is a fraction of the complexity of the Boston project. And in the advisory vote, Seattle -- in typical fashion -- rejected both options. So everyone gets the benefit of saying they voted against it.
- techsupporter 11y ago
  But there were so many elections and advisory votes... For instance, the tunnel was approved in an August, 2011 vote: https://ballotpedia.org/Seattle_Viaduct_Tunnel_Replacement_Question_%28August_2011%29 https://ballotpedia.org/Seattle_Viaduct_Tunnel_Replacement_Q... http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/elections/201108/resPage7.aspx http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/elections/201108/resPag...
  - mikestew 11y ago
    That was the weirdest thing about Western Washington politics that I've observed: we'll keep voting until we get the answer we like. If voters refuse to give us that answer, we'll just go ahead and do it anyway. For history, I refer you to stadiums and the monorail, and I'm sure there are others I've missed.
    - x0x0 11y ago
      It just means the important votes aren't the referendums; the important votes are the elections.
CamperBob2 11y ago
Big Dig comparisons are common with respect to this project, but it's worth noting that the Big Dig improved traffic flow. The SR99 tunnel is worse than the status quo, with fewer lanes and fewer downtown exits. This means that a successful tunnel project means more gridlock, more pollution, and more wasted time. Our local and state transportation authorities have a political agenda, and transportation is very low on it.
- dfc 11y ago
  What is the political agenda? Kickbacks from construction contracts? As a someone not from Seattle, this whole debate is remarkably opaque. The linked article requires that the reader is already well versed in the debate and barely tries to recap or read new people in.
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    Someone else can probably explain it more precisely, but the tunnel in question is needed to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, a multi-deck elevated highway that took some damage in an earthquake over a decade ago. Some authorities have expressed concern that another earthquake of equal or greater magnitude might cause the viaduct to fail like the 1989 Embarcadero collapse in San Francisco, with the potential for significant loss of life. So the decision was made to tear down the viaduct and replace it. Why not reinforce it or even rebuild it in place with modern construction standards? Because the viaduct has another drawback besides its seismic vulnerabilities: it's big and ugly. Its removal would enhance property values along the Seattle waterfront tremendously. Reportedly, the developers who own the affected property are major contributors to the Seattle politicians who have the authority to make the final decision, so fixing the current viaduct was ruled out from the start. It was only a question of which less-effective solution would be adopted. With a rebuild off the table, the remaining options included surface-only streets, with fewer lanes and more traffic lights; a cut-and-cover tunnel, which would completely disrupt traffic in the area during construction; and the solution that was eventually chosen, a deep tunnel through unstable and poorly-characterized soils that would have to be bored underneath major downtown buildings and thoroughfares. The tunnel would have about half of the viaduct's lane capacity, no room for future expansion, and no downtown exits at all, but it wouldn't threaten the all-important view of Puget Sound, and parts of the old viaduct route could remain in use during construction. In other words, it was one of those politically-expedient solutions where lots of other peoples' money would be spent in the process of making very few people happy. Schadenfreude was the best-case outcome, since complaining about traffic is as popular around here as football in Texas or religion in Oklahoma. But we're now looking at one of the worst cases: the engineering behind the tunnel (and/or the $90 million custom machine that drills it) is proving to be inadequate to the job, so essentially no progress toward replacing the viaduct is being made at all. Drivers are fuming, lawyers are salivating, mild-mannered newspaper columnists are discovering their inner muckrakers... and seismologists are frowning and muttering ominously.
thinkingkong 11y ago
For someone not well-versed with the alternatives, could you summarize them?
- mkehrt 11y ago
  In SF, the Loma Prieta earthquake destroyed the Embarcadero highway. It was never rebuilt, but that didn't really cause problems.
  - ak217 11y ago
    The Embarcadero Freeway was not destroyed in the earthquake, although it was damaged. The Cypress Street Viaduct in Oakland collapsed in that earthquake, killing and injuring many people. Although the Embarcadero Freeway was never rebuilt and that greatly improved the waterfront, a lot of the traffic it carried was rerouted along the Central Freeway/Van Ness (GGB bound traffic) or SOMA surface streets, and no adequate public transit was built either, so "didn't cause problems" is arguable.
- aaronbrethorst 11y ago
  Downtown Seattle features an elevated section of highway, known as the Alaskan Way Viaduct. It dates back to the 1950s, and was heavily damaged during the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. There's no question that it's seismically unsound, and our state DoT put out this simulation a few years back to demonstrate what the next big quake is likely to do to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hos_uIKwC-c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hos_uIKwC-c So, a few options were proposed to replace it: 1. Surface highway 2. Cut and cover tunnel 3. Deep bore tunnel A surface highway is, by far, the simplest option to implement: you knock down the viaduct, and repave the area underneath it (there's already a road under the viaduct—it just needs expansion). The viaduct is a death trap, and it will kill some or all of the people on it when it comes down. There is absolutely no question about that in my mind whatsoever. For that reason, I absolutely refuse to set foot on it. There's going to be political hell to pay when it collapses and Seattleites are re-reminded that there was no reason why anyone had to die on a highway everyone knew was unsafe.

chrismcb 11y ago

One key point, the original completion date was dec 2015, as of today the drilled about 10% and had had several breakdowns.

jroseattle 11y ago

The biggest issue I have with this project isn't the chosen plan -- it's that Seattle waited 20+ years to take action. The 2001 Nisqually quake certainly damaged the 99 bridge, but it was already in a state of constant repair prior to that point. Before then, initiative after initiative was put on the ballot as Seattleites would constantly register their preferences for how to deal with the 99/waterfront area. There have been lots of politics involved over those 20+ years, and if Seattle is really bad at something, it's politics. The project, as poorly planned and estimated as it has been, is actually better than the historic alternative -- doing nothing at all.

chrismealy 11y ago
There's a difference between Seattle and Olympia.