As-it-happened: City Council briefed on Alaskan Way Viaduct settling

(TOPLINES: State insists Viaduct safe. Council wants to know specifics of what would make it unsafe. State says it’s up to tunnel contractor to figure out what happens next)

(Screengrab substituted for video window after meeting; will add archived video when available)
2:47 PM: The City Council regularly gets briefed on the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project, but with the disclosures of the past few days, the meeting under way now takes on extra weight. Watch in the video window above (click “play” for the live stream); we’ll note key points as it goes.

Regarding the “settling,” WSDOT officials say it does seem to have coincided with the “dewatering” process, which they explain involves a series of wells, to reduce the pressure as the contractor dug further down toward 120 feet in depth. This new settling, it’s explained, was detected by a wider swing in the survey area revealing “deep benchmarks” had settled – where they weren’t supposed to. “Local” settling is what they WERE expecting. But adding that to the “deep benchmark” settling, they came up with the inch of settling reported last Friday.

**AS-IT-HAPPENED COVERAGE CONTINUES AFTER THE JUMP**

They needed to figure out “what is really going on here, is it really tied to these dewatering wells?” so that’s why they did extra surveying over the weekend. WSDOT says that as they analyzed data over the weekend, they noted that “the Viaduct has experienced some settlement but it’s very uniform in nature and does not represent any form of safety threat for the Viaduct” but in the assessment of the “deep benchmark” settling, they could not confirm it was absolutely related to the dewatering wells, which have been in action for about three weeks. They’ve reiterated several times that they don’t believe there’s any safety risk.

As for shutting the wells off – “you don’t just flip a switch” to do that, it’s been explained, because if you did, you could damage nearby buildings or the pit itself.

2:59 PM: About 30 buildings in the “influence zone” have the one-inch settling situation, it’s just been explained. And they’re going to “kick up the surveying” beyond that zone. Now the briefing is moving to WSDOT’s Tim Moore, to speak to structural safety – “he knows the Viaduct better than anyone.” He says he’s been with WSDOT’s bridge office for more than 30 years. He reminds the council that the project is scheduled to tunnel underneath The Viaduct at some point once it restarts.

He talks about monitoring, saying they’ve surveyed over the east and west “gutter lines” since the 2001 earthquake, and did another such survey last Sunday morning “so we know how this structure has behaved (since then).” About the “differential settlement” – the uneven settlement that’s of concern,” which he describes as the “key component of whether this structure is going to see distress” – he says they’re not seeing that kind of distress so far.

They are surveying key points daily in a manner that can be done without closing travel lanes, WSDOT officials tell the council. Now Councilmember Jean Godden asks about the discrepancy between what was said long ago regarding 6″ settlement requiring shutting it down, and 6″ total settlement now being described as NOT requiring that. “Some of those large settlements in the past have been taken out of the picture …” because of strengthening, she is told. “It’s kind of like a start over.”

“I don’t think Viaduct closure is imminent,” Moore says.

Councilmember Sally Clark voices concern about settlement happening on one end and not the other, and won’t there be some “tugging”? Moore explains it’s really three spans that “act independently of each other.”

So what if you stop pumping the water and it comes back in? asks Councilmember Sally Bagshaw. A consultant takes that one on. He says most of the deep settlement seem to be happening “down in the glacial soils in the vicinity of where the water is being taken out.” He says it’s a “spring kind of compression” that might also rebound. “So what about the buildings on the surface?” she asks, if it’s “condensing and expanding, condensing and expanding.” They think “there’s a very good chance” the buildings will suffer “no lasting effects,” but they’re checking to be sure.

Councilmember Mike O’Brien notes that the 6″-settlement threshold is the only one they or we have ever heard, so if that’s not valid any more, WSDOT needs to articulate some better way for us to understand what *is* the safety threshold.

“Case by case,” he is told, “obtaining the information continually and timely” – assessing structures. “What can happen to a structure (then) and what cannot?” O’Brien presses.

Moore is asked for a scenario “that would lead you to concern,” then, to answer that. He mentions “fairly significant” structural cracks that are not getting in the way of the Viaduct to safely carry traffic, but would reduce its originally expected 75-year life span – though that’s beyond the time frame expected for it to be taken down. (It’s half a century old already.)

O’Brien is still pressing for clearer details on what would cause WSDOT to say it’s not safe any more. He wants to know specifics. “It’s really dependent on some characteristics … if it’s a slow settlement, the concrete can … dissipate some of that over time,” Moore explains. “(So far) we haven’t seen a huge buildup of strain in the reinforcing steel.” He reiterates, the Viaduct won’t make it to its originally planned 75-year life. And O’Brien still wants to know, what would push it over the limit? Moore says he just doesn’t have something specific to say in response.

Councilmember Sally Clark now points a question at SDOT director Scott Kubly, wondering who’s checking the state’s work as the plans for digging the hole are revised, and so on. Kubly says that’s a good question and backtracks to explain that Mayor Murray asked that SDOT and WSDOT set up a “unified command” as soon as the settling was revealed late last week. The “unified command” included utilities “because it’s the underground stuff that’s most of concern right now,” Kubly said. “We’re in the data-gathering and data-analysis phase” right now, he added. “… This is a really serious incident, and I think the city’s response reflects that.”

3:33 PM: O’Brien asked if SDOT has the expertise to independently look at WSDOT data and make its own conclusions on whether the situation is safe or not. “Right now we’re looking over their shoulder and following their lead – it’s their structure,” Kubly replied.

Councilmember Tom Rasmussen notes that he and his colleagues are frustrated at not being able to understand yet “what are the facts, what is the data needed to determine if they agree or disagree with WSDOT” regarding safety. Looking over shoulder’s not good enough – “you need to be at their sides,” he tells Kubly, next asking if SDOT has the kind of expertise to do that. “Yes, we do,” he replies.

In response to questions from Councilmember Kshama Sawant, WSDOT’s Moore details his resumé and past projects he’s worked on (including the Tacoma Narrows Bridge) and his expertise in analyzing the stress on concrete and steel in structures like this. He notes that the City of Seattle designed the section of Alaskan Way Viaduct that is still up; the state designed the section that has been demolished and replaced in recent years. He again mentions some cracking in The Viaduct that is the result of original design that wasn’t to the kind of standard that would be expected today, but it is still capable of carrying the load it’s expected to. Project consultant Red Robinson details his background in evaluating settlement and water challenges in tunnel projects.

3:42 PM: Councilmember Bagshaw asks “what is your confidence level” in The Viaduct right now? Would you allow your child to walk or ride under it? WSDOT’s Moore says yes, absolutely. He says he has 95 percent confidence in it right now. “We do have certain locations which are suspect and settlements of a large magnitude give us some concern.” Bagshaw asks, “What about that 5 percent?” Moore says, “It’s that earthquake probability … we all know we have ground issues, as well as issues at the joints.”

Councilmember Jean Godden invites them back next Monday to provide not only an update but also what would happen if The Viaduct had to be closed. The daily inspections/surveying will continue in the meantime, WSDOT says.

When was the 1 1/4″ settlement noticed? asked Councilmember O’Brien. Reply: This weekend. So what about the earlier reports that the information had been out for a while? Actually, the anomaly was picked up by the contractor just before Thanksgiving, and surveying was done the weekend after Thanksgiving, but WSDOT had not confirmed it until last week, he was told.

O’Brien bristles at this and says they should be told before 100 percent confirmation – “if there’s an anomaly, I want to know. … I would rather you err on the side of letting us know what’s going on and saying ‘we haven’t confirmed it’.”

Now he asks – are they still dewatering or not? “They are still dewatering,” is the reply. As mentioned earlier, it’s not something that can be stopped abruptly. They’re expecting they WILL stop – but that’s pending data, so there’s a chance they might not have to.

What about building settlement/damage? An unspecified media report is mentioned. WSDOT says they haven’t seen anything from outside, but they’re planning another round of checks, and they’re going to offer a hotline to building owners that might have something to report.

O’Brien now presses the point – are you sure it’s safe to have vehicles on The Viaduct, if it was going to be closed when the tunneling was happening beneath it? The reply notes that there will be definite ground movement when the machine goes beneath it – not the same situation as exists now – and they would want to be able to act quickly if stabilization were needed. This is not the same kind of fast-moving situation, they explain.

Rasmussen asks how all this might affect the schedule. Too soon to say, he’s told. Even before this, WSDOT says, the contractor had told them verbally that the March restart is not likely. And they won’t know for certain where they’re at until the tunneling machine parts to be removed are above ground and taken apart and assessed.

O’Brien goes back again to the issue of how much settling is OK – is it specified in the contract? he asks. Yes, there are some specifics, he’s told. They’d like to be briefed on that, he subsequently says.

Bagshaw gets back to the access pit. Are the last 40 feet of digging ‘doable’? she asks. Yes, says WSDOT, depending on how all these new discoveries shake out. Do you know what you’re going to do about the dewatering problem? she presses. WSDOT says that since it’s a design-build contract, it’s up to Seattle Tunnel Partners to solve the problem.

Next up – WSDOT promises updates if there’s anything major before they return to the City Council next Monday at 9:30 am to talk about what Councilmember Godden, chairing this meeting, describes as “what if – what if we need to shut it down for a time,” etc. They’re moving on now at 4:01 pm to talk about the seawall project; we won’t be chronicling that. Once the meeting is over, we’ll watch for the archived video to be posted at SeattleChannel.com and will substitute it above when available.

44 Replies to "As-it-happened: City Council briefed on Alaskan Way Viaduct settling"

  • Lrs December 8, 2014 (3:59 pm)

    WSB

    If this tunnel is ever finished what will be the new Rapid Ride C line route without the option of the Seneca exit?

  • wetone December 8, 2014 (4:57 pm)

    I can see why the tunnel is a mess along with many other WSDOT, SDOT projects. All one has to do is watch or listen to that briefing, scary the way the WSDOT gentlemen and Scott Kubly are answering the questions being asked, especially from Mike O’Brien which were very good, answers were being sidestepped at best. The WSDOT person doing all the talking sounded like a used car salesman with his answers. I really liked how he answered the question about damage to area buildings. He said they haven’t heard of any, then followed up saying they have only been monitoring the exteriors. If true it scares me even more about this project, but I find that very hard to believe and know for fact that many of the area buildings are showing signs of damage from this project and the waterfront rebuild. From the answers they gave it makes me really wonder what and how much their hiding. People really need to watch the video. Where and why wasn’t the mayor there ? must not really care.

  • ChefJoe December 8, 2014 (5:25 pm)

    wetone, I think only 5 councilpeople were there but I think this was a committee meeting as opposed to any special “all hands” full council session.

    Sadly, O’Brien’s question was still asking for a specific “number” as to when the viaduct is unsafe and the reality is it’s going to be a panel decision about “is it safey” involving data from a pool of engineers and what they’re inferring about a poorly documented 60 year old structure. It’s like asking which of Monet’s “Water Lilies” paintings is the best and some formula that would rank them.

  • Curtis December 8, 2014 (6:53 pm)

    There are, what, three tunneling machines at work right now in the city that are doing just fine? People need to get a grip on this project. What we’ve learned, if anything, is that the Viaduct should NEVER have been built in the first place. Tunnels are much safer in an Earthquake as they move with the ground whereas things on top shake like the candles on Grandma’s Birthday Jello! The Train Tunnel has been open underground for how long now? 100+ years? When the Tunnel is open, folks will wonder why any other idea was ever proposed. And to Lrs, please understand that of all the options ever considered – bridges, tunnels, new viaducts, NONE, I repeat N-O-N-E of them have ever included a downtown exit. This is a road to go through downtown, not to downtown. The traffic planners want you to take 4th ave to go downtown from West Seattle. Not that they’ve done a great job of communicating that….

  • pupsarebest December 8, 2014 (7:56 pm)

    So much blood on so many hands.
    Many heads should roll, but none will.
    Every negative impact of this fiasco (heinous commute times/time & money wasted) is falling on the average Seattle citizen.

  • Andrew staler December 8, 2014 (7:57 pm)

    Well, here’s something I’d like to see. How much does it cost to have this debacle idling for more than a year.

    And here’s a modest proposal: a national debt style clock right above where Bertha is. So every time you take the viaduct you see it. And the one thing I’d like to know is why don’t we know this number? Why isn’t it public information?

  • trickycoolj December 8, 2014 (8:00 pm)

    Curtis do you mean the bus tunnel? That was built in the 1980s and collapsed during the build killing workers? Or the Snoqualmie Tunnel in the mountains that was also recently closed because it needed reinforcement from collapse?

    I really worry at their lack of definitive answer of a safety threshold. Nah don’t worry about the other settling, it’s not cumulative anymore. Whatever answer doesn’t put the closure on their shoulders. Which one of these quotes will be repeated over and over in the event of a catastrophe?

  • Pigeonpoint Ben December 8, 2014 (8:09 pm)

    Thank you Curtis for setting us all at ease. Everything is going to be alright. Hey, mind sharing if you have any connection to this project?

  • Chuck and Sally's Van Man December 8, 2014 (8:28 pm)

    @Curtis: As someone who currently takes 4th to go all the way through town to S. Lake Union, let me share that even now with the viaduct still open (and its exit at Seneca) that it’s becoming steadily more congested. The idea not to include a downtown exit was sheer folly on the part of our city planners. While it is one thing to promote buses and bikes and water taxis, the fact is we are going to have a mess on our hands when (if?) that tunnel ever gets built. Without cops in place to handle the many traffic lights (not unlike how they’re handling Mercer at rush hour), I see a very bleak future ahead for W. Seattle residents simply trying to get to work. Surface streets alone aren’t gonna cut it.

  • ChefJoe December 8, 2014 (8:56 pm)

    Curtis, see the animation of the cut-and-cover tunnel here…. still had a Western ave exit.

    http://youtu.be/P91H-l9QCfU?t=1m

  • Bertha Schmertha December 8, 2014 (9:26 pm)

    I love how the people who are concerned about cost overruns and the constant parade of breakdowns are the ones who “need to get a grip on this project”. Tunnel supporters act like this is business as usual. “Yeah, Bertha made it 10% of the way and then got stuck for a year. No problem! So what that it is going to take months and months to fix and upgrade it and then we hope that it doesn’t get jammed again in a worse location. Everything is fine! The ground around the repair hole is settling and might affect nearby structures. What, me worry?”
    I think tunnel supporters like Curtis need to get a grip and see that everyone involved in this project is in way over their heads.

  • Steve December 8, 2014 (9:39 pm)

    Excellent reporting, WSB. This is all very concerning…now the viaduct is near-collapsing and we’re nowhere close to having the tunnel completed. I can see 99 being relocated to surface-level under the existing viaduct with a tunnel up to the new northside portal if they can’t solve the water-table issue.

  • MyEye December 8, 2014 (9:44 pm)

    Seriously, at this point we should just scuttle this and do the cut and cover. We could have done the seawall and the cut and cover in one fell swoop.

  • wscommuter December 8, 2014 (9:54 pm)

    @Bertha S. – No … as a tunnel supporter (and with NO connection to the project – I just read the facts) I recognize that really large, complex infrastructure projects are challenging and run into problems for all sorts of reasons – why is it so hard to recognize that doing big things is difficult?

    But that reality is not a reason to not do the project. Big steps can be messy. But in the end, what you get is a substantive improvement. Even folks in Boston (for all the whining one reads here about the Big Dig) recognize that that project built what Boston needed.

    The tunnel haters here are critical of a project because they wanted another alternative … but anyone dealing in facts would know that the other alternatives were each a bad idea. Every one of them. And typically, on this blog I read the most common tunnel haters either have a deluded (I use the word advisedly) thought that the current viaduct could be “fixed and patched” – simply a ridiculously unsafe idea … or want the bus/bike option of surface-only. Again – a ridiculous idea for a car-based economy.

    So to all of those here who are whining about this project, please explain – credibly and with facts – just what we were supposed to do?

  • nefermore December 8, 2014 (10:12 pm)

    With all the unplanned issues that have come up so far I worry.

  • WS4Life December 8, 2014 (11:38 pm)

    wscommuter.- An Elliott Bay bridge that is a much more elegant solution that we should look to reconsider plus its $1.8 billion less!:

    http://www.westseattleherald.com/2009/12/22/news/bridge-designer-defends-his-proposal

    http://kiroradio.com/76/2427069/Viaduct-replacement-Should-we-have-built-bridge-instead-of-tunnel

  • Kevin December 9, 2014 (12:07 am)

    @wscommuter: not knowing “just what we were supposed to do?” has no impact on the validity of issues called out by those opposed to the tunnel. I can’t tell you how many pennies will fit in your pocket. Does that mean I’m wrong when I say that a watermelon won’t fit?

  • dsa December 9, 2014 (1:02 am)

    wsommunter, it was a dollars decision. Alignments along the waterfront meant the state would have to include the cost of the seawall in the project, so those were either equal or not competitive cost wise with this inferior capacity design. And as you know only Seattle taxpayers, not the general state traveling public will pay for the seawall now.
    .
    Don’t try to sell this alignment as superior in traffic design or capacity. It was forced on the local agencies by the then governor.

  • JanS December 9, 2014 (1:08 am)

    trickycoolj…there is a train tunnel under the city that exits on the waterfront, sort of under the market in back of one of the parking lots…I’m thinking that’s the one Curtis was referring to. It’s been there forever. You can see the entrance from 4th and, I believe, King…

    MIWS..where are you when I need a validation ;-)

    found it… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Tunnel

  • JanS December 9, 2014 (1:10 am)

    and on the news at 11, it was reported that at least 30 buildings have settled, too, and they are not even where the sensors are. Something to think about. That is NOT business as usual, and for tunnel supporters, if that was your house, how would you feel about it.? “Well, it’s complicated, and a big project. It’ll work out”? I doubt it.

    • WSB December 9, 2014 (1:21 am)

      The “30 buildings settling” was from the briefing, covered above; see the line that begins 2:59 pm. (Sorry the video’s not available yet, I checked the Seattle Channel site again a little while ago, maybe later today.)
      .
      A few other notes – we have covered Highway 99/Viaduct extensively going back seven years, and dropping into the archives, I found a few things – for example, the center-downtown exits were out even with the two proposals that were under consideration before the deep-bore tunnel was suddenly announced – late 2008: https://westseattleblog.com/2008/12/viaduct-panel-west-seattle-impact-well-get-back-to-you-on-that
      .
      And for anyone who’s a recent arrival or wanted a refresher on history, here’s our coverage of the day the tunnel was announced, early 2009:
      .
      https://westseattleblog.com/2009/01/alaskan-way-viaduct-announcement-at-the-briefing/
      .
      At the time, interestingly – with the state, city, and county all led by people who are no longer in office – it was said they weren’t sure whether they might bring down the Viaduct before the tunnel was done (then-Gov. Gregoire had famously announced at one point the Viaduct would come down in 2012).

  • Diane December 9, 2014 (1:57 am)

    that meeting today was unbelievable; CM’s were way too nice; they need to get fired up on this

  • John December 9, 2014 (7:43 am)

    Fired up?

    As long a each councilperson gets to stretch out in front of the media with an eye towards upcoming elections and the critics are wailing, “I told you so,” there is no need for a call to arms.
    The embarrassment of all those involved is evident.

    But remember, we are a town with a rich history of clever engineers that have made unbelievable changes to our landscape and built unbelievable flying machines.

    The cutting edge involves risk and surprises, let’s just let our talented engineers do their jobs.

    It’s too bad that really great and challenging concepts (like the high suspension bridge) are no longer embraced.

    The West Seattle Bridge was a first of its kind engineering marvel. Our city can rise to the challenge.

  • miws December 9, 2014 (8:51 am)

    Jan, at 1:08am, I shall defer to wiki…. ;-)

    .

    Mike

  • wsxommuter December 9, 2014 (9:04 am)

    @dsa … I love how you just throw out your pet theory/conspiracy without any actual facts to support it … it just fits your view of things, truth be damned. Blame government and big companies and accuse them all of being corrupt. Or would be asking too much for you to offer some facts to back up your claims?

    @WS4Life … the suspension bridge was never a serious idea. From an engineering perspective, it would have been just as expensive, if not more so, and presented incredible challenges to shipping. It was more of a “wouldn’t it be nice if we could do this” fantasy. The only real “serious” options were 1. cut and cover tunnel (rejected by voters and would have required demolishing the viaduct during construction) 2. rebuild the viaduct (again, required demolishing current viaduct to build it and it would have been 50% larger structure with seismic vulnerabilities), or 3. the “let the all take buses and bikes” option of surface street only.

  • Rick December 9, 2014 (9:41 am)

    I had predicted these issues (including “shells”, excluding “pipe”) and was always a proponent of the bridge if something “had” to be done. The viaduct could have been re-done, the “bridge” could have been an asset at less cost and disruption,but would have blocked potential views. And there’s the rub. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

  • dsa December 9, 2014 (11:10 am)

    Rick is correct. It has always been about blocking the views of the wealthy.

  • Born on Alki December 9, 2014 (11:51 am)

    The cut and cover would have been much easier and could have addressed the sea wall at the same time. Take a look at ChefJoe’s attachment dated 2006. Pretty cool idea. The cut and cover concept may need to be re-considered if Bertha only makes it another 10% again.

    BTW….Good post John. Agreed. The “I told you so’s are a moot point now, but we should all consider how the obvious cost overruns will be addressed by our local officials.

  • Bryan B) December 9, 2014 (12:09 pm)

    Looking out my window at Seattle’s other big pit, at Lowman beach… so far, no sign of Bertha here either. Since I can’t concentrate on anything else with the noise here, thought I’d re-post my comment from seattletimes:

    The problem I have with the tunnel project is that people keep calling it a ‘viaduct replacement’.

    Whether or not the tunnel is completed, studies show that most viaduct traffic will end up on the surface streets and I-5 (myself included).I don’t doubt that given enough time and money, the dig will get finished, but that doesn’t mean the right problem is being solved. And far muddier than the rescue pit is the open question of who’s paying for the cost overruns. Without good alternatives on the negotiating table, I think the answer’s going to be us the taxpayers.

    With that in mind, I’d like to suggest a ‘hybrid’ alternative, with a northbound mini-viaduct over a southbound trench, to maintain 99’s current route, capacity, and access ramps. The street level would be clear for local roads and parking, and above that could be pedestrian spaces similar to the current waterfront plans. This would provide a relatively simple and compact solution for the half-mile where space is most limited, from Colman Dock to Seattle Aquarium, with a conventional single-deck design beyond. Here’s a conceptual cross-section I made awhile back:

    http://home.comcast.net/~bloss1/viaduct-hybrid.png

    Comments, suggestions, and most snide remarks are welcome, B)

  • Kathy December 9, 2014 (12:14 pm)

    Maybe it would be safer to take the 50 or 21 bus to SODO and go downtown via Link/busway buses/Downtown Transit Tunnel than to ride the buses that use the viaduct. Since they don’t seem to be able to say what would make the viaduct unsafe.

  • jwright December 9, 2014 (1:23 pm)

    Just wanted to post a show of support for what Curtis and wscommuter have to say. Glad to see there are at least a couple folks who don’t think the sky is falling.
    .
    And with respect to Governor Gregoire forcing this option on the local jurisdictions, Seattle dithered for eternity and proved (unsurprisingly) that it was incapable of making a decision. I respect her for making a decision–any decision.
    .
    All the “they should have done [other option]” talk revolves around the fact that 1/3 of the people wanted a tunnel, 1/3 wanted a rebuilt viaduct, and 1/3 wanted the surface option. With that reality, 2/3 of the public was against every option and none of Seattle’s leaders had the vision/clout/balls to get something done so they effectively abdicated to the state.

  • dsa December 9, 2014 (2:56 pm)

    jwright, the engineering and environmental process was heading for a final recommendation, but the governor who was neither an engineer or environmentalist ripped the decision away and forced a coalition of decision makers into the deep bore tunnel.
    .
    Now we have been cut off from Ballard, Magnolia, West Queen Anne, the Seattle Center unless we go through downtown, circle around it.

    thanks

  • wetone December 9, 2014 (3:47 pm)

    B, I like it more capacity, bus and or rail, bike path, along with room for growth. Common sense design, something the tunnel has none of. Sad part is what were seeing is a few peoples vision being built since they seem to have open check book (us)along with investors wanting property or to build up what they have once viaduct is gone. Couple things the public is not hearing about are problems involving all the utilities in the area such as water, sewer, all in ground pipes many that are very old. How are they holding up :) and you also have underground electrical vaults. The city/state is keeping very quite on the infrastructure in this area. If buildings are showing movement which they are then one knows everything else is moving.

  • Born On Alki 59 December 9, 2014 (4:14 pm)

    Kathy,
    I’d drive the viaduct in a 72 Pinto with a leaky gas tank during an earthquake over a Metro bus ride any day….much safer IMO. :)

  • Curtis December 9, 2014 (4:33 pm)

    No connection to the project, I just happen to think it is by far the best solution to the problem being addressed. By the way, the problem being addressed is how best to get State Highway 99 THROUGH Seattle. This project has never been about getting people TO Downtown. While there IS surface street relief in the project, that part can’t be built until the Viaduct comes down. I support the Tunnel because it keeps traffic open on the Viaduct where as the other options did not. As for the illustration above with the downtown exit, I will say that I was wrong. I will point out, however, that this option never made it to the final rounds of consideration. Remember, THROUGH, not TO. By the way, I wasn’t saying that the 4th Ave solution was perfect, just that it is what is intended to replace the trip TO downtown (along with a new Alaska Way and Western Avenue).

  • Civik December 9, 2014 (6:11 pm)

    Curtis, I think you’re close. The objective is to remove any ingress of traffic from the waterfront so it can be more of a tourism haven. It moves traffic to 1st/4th and possibly I5, which will be a state/federal problem to fix.

  • dbf December 9, 2014 (7:10 pm)

    Anyone know the method/plan for escape routes out of tunnel? Hundreds of feet down, ladders aren’t gonna work.

  • Born On Alki 59 December 10, 2014 (7:00 am)

    dbf, The escape shafts are being installed about every 1000 feet. First one is currently in process. (jk) I have never heard of any escape routes. Has anybody?

  • Born On Alki 59 December 10, 2014 (1:18 pm)

    Thanks Tracy. It looks like there are several escape exits.

  • dbf December 10, 2014 (7:58 pm)

    Thanks, was hoping for more than pics of doors.
    The tunnel being than deep, was curious if stairs, ladders, catapults? The Batt. St tunnel just has doors to oncoming traffic.

Sorry, comment time is over.