4 ms·

What is the political agenda? Kickbacks from construction contracts? As a someone not from Seattle, this whole debate is remarkably opaque. The linked article r

by 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.
- marshray 11y ago
  Specifically, the seismologist estimates are a 10% probability each decade that the Alaskan Way viaduct will collapse in an earthquake. It's already a big heavy mass of concrete and steel, and was reinforced after the last earthquake, it's hard to imagine reinforcing it more.
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    It's already a big heavy mass of concrete and steel, and was reinforced after the last earthquake, it's hard to imagine reinforcing it more. We could rebuild and reinforce it on Mars for what the SR99 tunnel debacle is eventually going to cost us, in both direct and long-term economic impact. I'm only being slightly hyperbolic here. By way of example, the Big Dig cost about 40% more than NASA's annual budget... and as I pointed out earlier, the Big Dig was an improvement project. The SR99 tunnel is not.
    - marshray 11y ago
      I don't think it's helpful to be hyperbolic. It only took a couple of minutes to look up some real numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Way_Viaduct_replacement_tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Way_Viaduct_replacemen... "The project is estimated to cost US$4.25 billion, with $2.8 billion coming from the state and federal governments" http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/bertha-restarts-after-two-years-of-delays/ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/bert... "overall costs for repair, including excavation of the giant repair-access vault, are expected to exceed $143 million." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140422-mars-mission-manned-cost-science-space/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140422-mars-... "The expert panel puts the total cost of a 20-year program culminating in a manned mission to Mars in the range of $80 to $100 billion."
      - CamperBob2 11y ago
        Jeez, on an annual basis, that Mars mission isn't looking so bad! That's Apollo program money -- even less if you account for it in 1960s dollars. My guess is that I'm personally not ever going to walk on Mars or drive through a hypothetical SR99 tunnel, so it's largely a moot point. Keep in mind that the Big Dig's original cost estimate was something like $3 billion. Turned out to be closer to $24 billion. We're not very good at these things, it seems.

by dfc 11y ago

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.

marshray 11y ago
Specifically, the seismologist estimates are a 10% probability each decade that the Alaskan Way viaduct will collapse in an earthquake. It's already a big heavy mass of concrete and steel, and was reinforced after the last earthquake, it's hard to imagine reinforcing it more.
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  It's already a big heavy mass of concrete and steel, and was reinforced after the last earthquake, it's hard to imagine reinforcing it more. We could rebuild and reinforce it on Mars for what the SR99 tunnel debacle is eventually going to cost us, in both direct and long-term economic impact. I'm only being slightly hyperbolic here. By way of example, the Big Dig cost about 40% more than NASA's annual budget... and as I pointed out earlier, the Big Dig was an improvement project. The SR99 tunnel is not.
  - marshray 11y ago
    I don't think it's helpful to be hyperbolic. It only took a couple of minutes to look up some real numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Way_Viaduct_replacement_tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Way_Viaduct_replacemen... "The project is estimated to cost US$4.25 billion, with $2.8 billion coming from the state and federal governments" http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/bertha-restarts-after-two-years-of-delays/ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/bert... "overall costs for repair, including excavation of the giant repair-access vault, are expected to exceed $143 million." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140422-mars-mission-manned-cost-science-space/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140422-mars-... "The expert panel puts the total cost of a 20-year program culminating in a manned mission to Mars in the range of $80 to $100 billion."
    - CamperBob2 11y ago
      Jeez, on an annual basis, that Mars mission isn't looking so bad! That's Apollo program money -- even less if you account for it in 1960s dollars. My guess is that I'm personally not ever going to walk on Mars or drive through a hypothetical SR99 tunnel, so it's largely a moot point. Keep in mind that the Big Dig's original cost estimate was something like $3 billion. Turned out to be closer to $24 billion. We're not very good at these things, it seems.