Bertha back on the move after 2 years of delays(seattletimes.com)
seattletimes.com
Bertha back on the move after 2 years of delays
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/bertha-restarts-after-two-years-of-delays/
3 comments
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.
Our local and state transportation authorities have a political agenda, and transportation is very low on it.
fewer downtown exits
Fewer downtown exits should mean better flow through SR99 because there will be less intra-city traffic clogging lanes. That's one of the reasons the Big Dig improved traffic on I-93, they removed a bunch of downtown and South End exits. Of course the Big Dig supplemented that by increasing the capacity of surface streets on and around Atlantic Ave.
If Seattle is doing something similar (I'm not familiar with the specifics of the SR99 project) that should be a bet positive for traffic flow. If not, then, well, sucks to be in Seattle.
Fewer downtown exits should mean better flow through SR99 because there will be less intra-city traffic clogging lanes. That's one of the reasons the Big Dig improved traffic on I-93, they removed a bunch of downtown and South End exits. Of course the Big Dig supplemented that by increasing the capacity of surface streets on and around Atlantic Ave.
If Seattle is doing something similar (I'm not familiar with the specifics of the SR99 project) that should be a bet positive for traffic flow. If not, then, well, sucks to be in Seattle.
It seems reasonable, but at least one study[1] concluded that during peak hours in 2004/5 90% of northbound and 77% of southbound traffic on SR99 entered the viaduct from one of the downtown exits. WSDOT's own analysis from 2011 found almost 50% of the viaducts traffic entering or exiting downtown [2].
To my knowledge there is no plan to improve surface streets to accommodate this traffic.
[1]: http://cnu.civicactions.net/resources/publications/alaskan-w...
[2]: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/Faqs
To my knowledge there is no plan to improve surface streets to accommodate this traffic.
[1]: http://cnu.civicactions.net/resources/publications/alaskan-w...
[2]: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/Faqs
Except the whole reason for building roads is to get people and goods where they need to go... and many of them need to go downtown.
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean the optimum road system will have every road having every possible exit.
Downtown streets are traditionally built that way because they are two dimensional. This tunnel exists in the 3rd dimension.
Downtown streets are traditionally built that way because they are two dimensional. This tunnel exists in the 3rd dimension.
The whole reason to build a bypass is to by pass an area. In this case 99 is supposed to bypass downtown. If you want to get downtown use other methods, if you want to quickly go around downtown user 5 or 99
Whatever. The fact is, the viaduct has access to surface streets that the tunnel will not have. Existing functionality is being lost in a time when additional functionality is needed.
If you live and/or work in the area -- and I have, although I don't currently -- this is not a good thing.
Only on HN would someone mod down the assertion, "The whole reason for building roads is to get people and goods where they need to go." Next up for refutation: color of sky, followed by the wet-dry nature of water.
If you live and/or work in the area -- and I have, although I don't currently -- this is not a good thing.
Only on HN would someone mod down the assertion, "The whole reason for building roads is to get people and goods where they need to go." Next up for refutation: color of sky, followed by the wet-dry nature of water.
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.
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.
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.
One thing I would like to point out is that the surface only option would have included a lot of money for transit.
Imagine how much transit $4 billion could buy.
Imagine how much transit $4 billion could buy.
>Imagine how much transit $4 billion could buy.
Slightly more than 3.5 miles of light rail if Boston is any comparison.[0]
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_Extension
Slightly more than 3.5 miles of light rail if Boston is any comparison.[0]
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_Extension
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.
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.
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.
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.
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_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/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-... "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."
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/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-... "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."
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.
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.
Really? I think it's far more likely the highway tunnel project will be completed than I will personally walk on Mars.
I guess I'm new to the West coast and Seattle area. What is it about this project that has everybody just flipping out of their minds?
I guess I'm new to the West coast and Seattle area. What is it about this project that has everybody just flipping out of their minds?
The comments in the article actually do a pretty good job of conveying various points of view: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/bert...
I live north of King County, so I don't have any personal insights beyond what I've already posted. My main concern is how much responsibility the state will have to bear for cost overruns. SR99 is technically a state-level project, even though it has little relevance to anyone outside Seattle. It's safe to say Seattle will try very hard to make the rest of us pay for their mistakes.
I live north of King County, so I don't have any personal insights beyond what I've already posted. My main concern is how much responsibility the state will have to bear for cost overruns. SR99 is technically a state-level project, even though it has little relevance to anyone outside Seattle. It's safe to say Seattle will try very hard to make the rest of us pay for their mistakes.
It's safe to say Seattle will try very hard to make the rest of us pay for their mistakes.
IIRC the people of Seattle and their government did not exactly push hard for the current plan? There was a referendum in which both the tunnel option and reinforcing the viaduct did not garner popular support, although reinforcement got more votes than a tunnel.
I think in this case "it's safe to say everyone is going to have to pay for everyone's mistake" is more fair. And certainly SR99 has impact outside Seattle, since Seattle is a huge part of the WA economy and basically anything that has impact in Seattle, has impact in WA.
IIRC the people of Seattle and their government did not exactly push hard for the current plan? There was a referendum in which both the tunnel option and reinforcing the viaduct did not garner popular support, although reinforcement got more votes than a tunnel.
I think in this case "it's safe to say everyone is going to have to pay for everyone's mistake" is more fair. And certainly SR99 has impact outside Seattle, since Seattle is a huge part of the WA economy and basically anything that has impact in Seattle, has impact in WA.
I haven't lived in Seattle for over a decade, so take the following with a grain of salt, but I was there for the earthquake that damaged the viaduct in the first place, and had followed another project which was winding down at that time, the outcome of which I think plays significantly into the frustration seen here on the part of Seattle residents.
Basically, it's because it's the second project in two decades where the will of Seattle voters has been totally ignored in favor of moneyed interests and the state government fucking with (and fucking over) Seattle infrastructure. The first project which ended up (finally) with a pretty sorry excuse for a light rail system between downtown Seattle and the airport, was constructed only after intense lobbying against which was, for a time, a much more popular (and extensive) monorail project. Several referendums were conducted over the course of about seven or eight years starting in the mid-nineties, and they went something like this:
1. Referendum for light rail - passes.
(much faffing about)
2. Referendum for monorail instead - passes.
(faffing about)
3. Another referendum for monorail - passes.
(faffing about)
4. Yet another fucking referendum for monorail - barely passes.
(faffing about)
5. One last referendum to actually go ahead and, you know, build the damn thing, amidst heavy lobbying against - fails.
And then Seattle gets a shitty light rail system that no one uses and hardly goes anywhere. Strangely, the moneyed interests that lobbied most against the monorail, become even more moneyed. And meanwhile, of course, other forms of public transportation i.e. buses have been allowed to rot.
And then right at the tail end of that mess came the earthquake, and the pressing need to overhaul/replace the AWV, and pretty much all the same political fuckery came out and made a total mess of that process in pretty much the same fashion as it had public transport.
I think, at the end of the day, there is a perception - and it is not totally incorrect - that there are a lot of registered voters in other parts of Washington State, particularly the eastern half of the state, who hate the Seattle metro area and the people who live there, and that this is reflected in the state government, and that when it comes time for infrastructure projects which will help to grow that part of the state which contributes most to Washington's economy, there is little political will in the state government to do the right thing. And so the success of Seattle is often in spite of the apathy, and occasionally even the active antipathy, of the rest of the state.
Basically, it's because it's the second project in two decades where the will of Seattle voters has been totally ignored in favor of moneyed interests and the state government fucking with (and fucking over) Seattle infrastructure. The first project which ended up (finally) with a pretty sorry excuse for a light rail system between downtown Seattle and the airport, was constructed only after intense lobbying against which was, for a time, a much more popular (and extensive) monorail project. Several referendums were conducted over the course of about seven or eight years starting in the mid-nineties, and they went something like this:
1. Referendum for light rail - passes.
(much faffing about)
2. Referendum for monorail instead - passes.
(faffing about)
3. Another referendum for monorail - passes.
(faffing about)
4. Yet another fucking referendum for monorail - barely passes.
(faffing about)
5. One last referendum to actually go ahead and, you know, build the damn thing, amidst heavy lobbying against - fails.
And then Seattle gets a shitty light rail system that no one uses and hardly goes anywhere. Strangely, the moneyed interests that lobbied most against the monorail, become even more moneyed. And meanwhile, of course, other forms of public transportation i.e. buses have been allowed to rot.
And then right at the tail end of that mess came the earthquake, and the pressing need to overhaul/replace the AWV, and pretty much all the same political fuckery came out and made a total mess of that process in pretty much the same fashion as it had public transport.
I think, at the end of the day, there is a perception - and it is not totally incorrect - that there are a lot of registered voters in other parts of Washington State, particularly the eastern half of the state, who hate the Seattle metro area and the people who live there, and that this is reflected in the state government, and that when it comes time for infrastructure projects which will help to grow that part of the state which contributes most to Washington's economy, there is little political will in the state government to do the right thing. And so the success of Seattle is often in spite of the apathy, and occasionally even the active antipathy, of the rest of the state.
"1989 Embarcadero collapse"? Didn't happen. One double deck in the East Bay collapsed because of bad design at the joint between the upper columns and the lower columns.
I've heard those arguments but I'm not qualified to take a position on them either way. I also don't know how much trust to put in the studies that predict doom for the Viaduct in a future Nisqually-class earthquake, or how much trust to put in the engineers who say that a similar earthquake won't be even more disastrous for drivers caught in the tunnel. None of these people have a great track record for accurate prognostications.
While the Embarcadero freeway was only damaged, resulting in its demolition, the Cypress st viaduct in West Oakland did collapse in the 1989 quake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypress_Street_Viaduct
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypress_Street_Viaduct
It didn't collapse but it was severely damaged.
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.
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_Q...
http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/elections/201108/resPag...
https://ballotpedia.org/Seattle_Viaduct_Tunnel_Replacement_Q...
http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/elections/201108/resPag...
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.
It just means the important votes aren't the referendums; the important votes are the elections.
For someone not well-versed with the alternatives, could you summarize them?
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
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.
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.
The area beneath the viaduct would make a horrible freeway. It is, and should be turned into a park with limited vehicle access. There is to much foot traffic in that area. There are better ways to redirect traffic around downtown Seattle without going directly beneath the viaduct
The area beneath the viaduct would make a horrible freeway. It is, and should be turned into a park with limited vehicle access. There is to much foot traffic in that area. There are better ways to redirect traffic around downtown Seattle without going directly beneath the viaduct
In SF, the Loma Prieta earthquake destroyed the Embarcadero highway. It was never rebuilt, but that didn't really cause problems.
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.
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.
The 1989 Loma Prieta quake flattened a similar structure and dozens died horrific deaths. Seattle was content to stare at theirs for nearly 20 years, even after a 2001 earthquake damaged it and the adjoining retaining sea wall.
There was no perfect solution and that got in the way of the good. Most people had the luxury of avoiding using it. I'd summarize the overarching opinion as "suburbanites who thought it would get fixed cheaper and faster once it finally collapsed."
There was no perfect solution and that got in the way of the good. Most people had the luxury of avoiding using it. I'd summarize the overarching opinion as "suburbanites who thought it would get fixed cheaper and faster once it finally collapsed."
One key point, the original completion date was dec 2015, as of today the drilled about 10% and had had several breakdowns.
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.
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.
There's a difference between Seattle and Olympia.
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.