Today’s Viaduct/Tunnel update: Long FAQ including declaration of disappointment, threshold for ‘mitigation,’ more

Today’s WSDOT update on the Viaduct/Tunnel project, posted late today, is a new, long FAQ attempting to answer some of the questions that have come up since the December 5th disclosure of “settling.” Read it in its entirety here. Some of what caught our eye on first look include:

Our contract with STP allows up to two inches of viaduct settlement before mitigation is required. Should it be necessary, a number of techniques could be used to strengthen the viaduct and keep it open to traffic until the new SR 99 corridor is completed. These techniques could include strengthening columns or other areas of the structure to provide additional support. We could also reinforce the viaduct’s foundation as we did in 2008.

Regarding the plan to reach, lift, and repair the tunnel machine’s cutter head, WSDOT writes, “We’re disappointed with STP’s progress to date …” while noting the pit is now three-fourths of the way to the expected 120-foot depth, and expressing optimism that even if the current rescue plan has to be abandoned: “At its core, this is an engineering problem, one that can no doubt be solved.” The FAQ reiterates, “No significant settlement has been observed in the area since Dec. 5.” And as for the biggest concern of all:

Our bridge experts have confirmed that the viaduct remains safe for day-to-day use. If we had any reason to believe it wasn’t, we wouldn’t hesitate to close it. It’s important to remember, however, that the day-to-day safety of the structure does not change the fact that the viaduct remains vulnerable to earthquakes. That’s why it’s being replaced.

38 Replies to "Today's Viaduct/Tunnel update: Long FAQ including declaration of disappointment, threshold for 'mitigation,' more"

  • K'lo December 17, 2014 (6:40 pm)

    Perhaps there hasn’t been any more settling due to the fact STP quit dewatering and digging? Sigh . . .

    • WSB December 17, 2014 (6:48 pm)

      It turns out they never stopped dewatering. They stopped digging on Dec. 12 by order of WSDOT but were given (as per last night’s update) the go-ahead to resume Dec. 16.

  • coffee December 17, 2014 (7:21 pm)

    A disgusting waste of money, time, and resources.

  • wscommuter December 17, 2014 (7:42 pm)

    @coffee … please explain how we solve these 2 problems then: 1. dilapidated viaduct that will collapse when we have the inevitable earthquake, and 2. the need for a north/south highway corridor to supplement I-5’s capacity.

    Solve those two problems and then justify your “disgust” to us, please.

    I am aware of only two other serious options that were possible: replace the viaduct with a new viaduct, or abandon the north/south highway corridor and go to a “surface street only” option. Personally, I found both neither of those options in the least bit remotely sensible.

    I’ll be waiting for your defense with baited breath …

  • 33me December 17, 2014 (8:13 pm)

    Wscommuter -how about the easy to engineer, cheap option of a cut and cover tunnel. With the price of the tunnel, we could build a cut and cover two times over and have enough left over to make an amazing park space to rival any open space in the world.

  • dsa December 17, 2014 (8:22 pm)

    A new viaduct would have been the same cost without the seawall which is how this turned out anyway, or to satisfy the greedy developers, the cut and cover method ala the existing Battery Street tunnel would have worked just fine.
    .
    Both of those would have *replaced* the existing traffic demand, instead of diverting half of it to local already congested streets.
    .
    You might as well get off the bus and walk. There is no useful traffic plan when this is completed.

  • MyEye December 17, 2014 (8:23 pm)

    There was also the cut and cover which had more lanes, kept the Seneca exit and covered the seawall replacement at the same time.

  • pupsarebest December 17, 2014 (8:39 pm)

    Two wonderful responses to relieve “baited” breath, but to tunnel cheerleaders, admitting failure (in so many, many, profound and predictable ways) is anathema.

  • old tier December 17, 2014 (8:56 pm)

    So glad to hear that this is only an engineering problem.
    All engineering problems can be solved with sufficient money and time, something Seattle has in surplus, or WSDOT does, or, maybe the Feds, or..
    Well, never mind, it will be solved someday and guess who will end up paying?
    (Hint: It won’t be Gregoire, Nickels, or Conlin)

  • Lox December 17, 2014 (9:06 pm)

    33me I love that idea!

  • Seattlecris December 17, 2014 (9:22 pm)

    The photo looks remarkably similar to the Murray sewer project hole.

  • wscommuter December 17, 2014 (9:22 pm)

    Cut and cover would have worked too … but was voted down (another reason why you don’t let the public vote on technical issues – this is why we elect legislators who are supposed to represent us on these things). But also – cut and cover was in the same price range as the bored tunnel.

    You do know we successfully bore tunnels all the time right? I get it – the tunnel haters cry boo hoo about Bertha’s problems. It is a big, complicated project. Big things are hard and sometimes, more difficult than hoped for. But not a reason to avoid doing such things.

  • dsa December 17, 2014 (9:45 pm)

    No wsc, cut and cover was not the same price. It *included* the seawall, which the tunnel does *not* include. Cut and cover forced WSDOT to pick up the cost of the seawall because of the proximity of the alignment to the failing seawall.
    .
    By aligning the tunnel well away from the seawall they were able to say the seawall would be the responsibility of Seattle voters and have no association with the replacement of the AWV. And that took the cost of the seawall out of the project and supposedly made the deep bore tunnel competitive from a cost basis if you disregard traffic carrying capabilities which they freely did.

    The seawall being constructed now is a city project paid for by taxed on Seattle residents, wheras before it would have been included with the awv project and state funds.

  • lou December 17, 2014 (9:49 pm)

    first Im pro tunnel. Every other option required the closure of this artery until the replacement was in place. Given the number of complaints I see on WSB when an accident occurs on 99 I believe the frustration, complaints, and aggrivation for other options would be much higher as they would find the backups intolerable during a multi year 99 closure. Yes there are delays in construction and issues but a majority, including myself, voted in favor of this. I will continue to support what I believe is the option for West Seattle commuters.

    I agree with wscommuter. tunnels are not new for Seattle. We successfully completed one under Beacon Hill for light rail and another is underway north of the U district.

  • nefermore December 17, 2014 (9:58 pm)

    I can not see how any of the other options would have cost near as much as this is, or taken as much time. Eventually we will get another quake so I hope they find a way to resolve their issues soon.

  • PSPS December 17, 2014 (10:33 pm)

    Leaving the existing viaduct intact and doing a retrofit would have cost a fraction of this, not involve any closing during the work, and leave the capacity intact. However, this most-logical alternative was dismissed at the very beginning.

  • 935 December 17, 2014 (10:42 pm)

    Cut & cover wouldn’t have worked because of the grade differential between AWV & 99 – apparent at elevated n end of AVW & Battery tunnel. Otherwise cut & cover GREAT option. Same reason surface option fails. Tunnel through seismically unstable soil also a terrible option. No need for any “proof” as the cheerleaders ask for. It is a KNOWN fact that the soils directly adjacent to the tunnel will liquefy during a temblor – hence the grout injection around the tunnel ring to stabilize the soils (what about the soils around the grouted areas?). The question was raised about tearing down AVW & the traffic issues therein. Imagine the traffic stalls in a 2 lane, 2 way tunnel at a max of around 100′ below sea level. With an entry about 10′ above sea level. In a seismically vunerable area….I do NOT want to be caught in that traffic jam. Especially when I have to pay for it.
    Tear down the AVW. Open the waterfront. Expand Spokane street, min 6 lanes – 3 merge lanes from SSV to I-5, widen I-5 from N end Boeing field to U-District. Connect 599/509 to I-5 @ Georgetown.
    Queen Christine can stop visualizing her name on a sign ALA Jeanette Williams….Unless those 40,000 paid cars are in the tunnel when the ‘big one’ hits, cracks the tunnel ring “shell” & drowns all those poor people. Then her (sadly their) epitaph. At least if the shaking starts on AVW, we can jump for it & maybe land of squishy soil.

    **drops mic**

  • westside Rob December 17, 2014 (11:06 pm)

    Just wondering, if big Bertha stalled and broke-down an came to screeching halt in the sandy soil’how in the hell is it going to get fired up and grind through this concrete shaft??

  • Jeffrey December 17, 2014 (11:36 pm)

    One thing is certain. Ya’ll are going to be paying higher taxes to cover the cost overruns. Count on another $1bn.

  • JanS December 18, 2014 (2:05 am)

    yes, we have other tunnels dug in Seattle, Beacon Hill, etc. They are a far cry from the size of this project, and from the waterfront. The ground is different (of course, I’m speaking from a lay point). Not as much water, silt, fill to deal with. So not as much settlement when ground water is pumped out(oh, gosh..water near Puget Sound? You’re kidding…)

    And we still want to know what happens when there is more sinkage. They alluded to the viaduct…what about the buildings? And what if they get to Bertha and it can’t be fixed, or it’s fixed and breaks down again? These are things I think about…doesn’t anyone else?

  • ChefJoe December 18, 2014 (5:57 am)

    935, the cut and cover tunnel was not “discarded” because of any slope.

    What I do find interesting is that the “geotechnical baseline report” for the tunnel had a building protection plan where they shored up buildings and accepted 0.5-0.75 inches of settlement for those and buildings not shored up had 1 inch of settlement as the limit. How many buildings have exceeded these “group a and b” limits and who will get sued ?

    http://www.shannonwilson.com/files/GBR%20for%20AWV.pdf

  • WestofJunction December 18, 2014 (6:25 am)

    DSA – walking will be the only way – the traffic will turn our transit into a crawl – the buses are re-routed so that they have to cross the train tracks to get from DT to 1st Ave entrance to the WSea Bridge. Try riding the 21 or any of the buses not express to WSea – that is the future of the “Rapid” Ride. This is incredibly stupid – only in Washington do we pay tons of $$$ to get significantly less capacity.

  • Born On Alki 59 December 18, 2014 (7:57 am)

    “Declaration of Disappointment”. That pretty much says it all.

  • WSEd December 18, 2014 (8:10 am)

    At this rate and cost each CITIZEN could have been given flying cars, a helipad on every block and a few of the cars that double as a speed boat. Probably would have been much cheaper and made the commute way more engaging.

    I want my flying car

  • jwright December 18, 2014 (9:29 am)

    Cut and cover may have left us with a nice final product, but I suspect nobody had the balls to approve the disruption that would have meant while the thing was being built.
    .
    As I’ve said before, the reality is that 1/3 of people wanted a new viaduct, 1/3 wanted a tunnel, and 1/3 wanted the surface street option. So every choice was opposed by a healthy majority. Frankly I’m amazed anything at all happened.

  • data December 18, 2014 (11:11 am)

    This line from the FAQ, “because there is no link between excavation and recent ground settlement, excavation was resumed…Public safety remains our top priority.” Wow! The correlation in this case is a bit too strong to ignore. And why can’t WSDOT be more factual? “A number of” used six times, “some” used nine, and the list continues. Does “some” mean 20 or 200? These terms mean nothing.

  • wetone December 18, 2014 (12:24 pm)

    Will if this is true, “the reality is that 1/3 of people wanted a new viaduct, 1/3 wanted a tunnel, and 1/3 wanted the surface street option. So every choice was opposed by a healthy majority”

    Well then one of common sense would think that’s even more of a reason the old viaduct should of been retrofitted…or a new hybrid style with less risk and money involved. Viaduct seems to holding fine for the abuse it’s going through and WSDOT seems to be changing some critical numbers in the allowable safety factor…hum…how can that be when it was so dangerous. Money could of been spent in much smarter ways like a transit system that actually helps traffic instead of making things worse. Maybe a tunnel for the trains so I won’t hear them all night long and people can get around the SODA district, or to W/S without waiting as a Sounder train then freight train goes past. When/if this tunnel gets done traffic in the SODA area will be gridlock. You have traffic from W/S and from all south part of city converging together to get downtown on surface streets. Adding all the new building units going in W/S and elsewhere doesn’t help the problem. ChefJoe, have a few friends that worked on some of the retrofitting/shoring up in area about 2yrs ago, was pretty interesting stuff, nothing related to tunnel ;) I am glad Mike O’Brien seems concerned and asking some serious questions, rest of crew including the mayor and Kubly look like deer in the headlights.

  • w.s. maverick December 18, 2014 (12:59 pm)

    nobody voted on this tunnel. what a waste of time and money. fill in the hole and start fresh with a new viaduct

  • Cowpie December 18, 2014 (2:29 pm)

    @WScommuter, How about getting people out of their cars and riding a bike to work? I’m in my 50’s and I’ve been doing it year round since 1988. I’ve even walked countless times from West Seattle to downtown Seattle when there’s to much snow. It’s a 2 1/2 hour walk and it’s wonderfully refreshing.

  • 33me December 18, 2014 (3:21 pm)

    Cowpie – the “getting people out of their cars” concept is great, but not realistic.

    I am a biking and running advocate, but the reality is it just isn’t going to happen any time soon.

    We are creatures of convenience, so there needs to be a major paradigm shift in how we view commuting activities (for example, it amazes me that people who drive to work and then spend an hour on a bike in gym or running with weights in a cross-fit class somehow can’t find the time to commute to work by bike). Perhaps the proliferation of shared vehicle services will help move us in the right direction by discouraging individual car ownership, and limiting car-based trips to special occasions. I honestly don’t know, but I do know its not going to happen anytime soon.

    In short, as noble and laudable as the bike to work concept is, we need to find a road-based transportation solution. (also, even for me the notion that someone is going to spend 2 1/2 hours walking downtown for a commute is a bit ludicrous, regardless of how refreshing it is – quite frankly, my time is better spent with my family).

  • Cascadianone December 18, 2014 (3:34 pm)

    The tunnel is a waste of money designed to profit greedy developers. The tax revenue all those waterfront condoes will produce will NEVER offset the cost of this tunnel and its ongoing maintenance.

    I’m all for mega-projects, but this one was just bad math and weak engineering. We all got DUPED. Some of us saw it coming and are vindicated. I wish it felt better to be so right…

  • TBone December 18, 2014 (4:27 pm)

    @935

    Sooo, enlighten me – if the cut and cover wouldn’t work because of grade differential to battery street tunnel, how does the deep-bore tunnel work with it?

    I agree with you that it should be a surface option, 6 lanes; one each way express with no downtown exits and 2 for merging and exiting, with pedestrian overpasses for

  • 935 December 18, 2014 (7:57 pm)

    The TBM would begin the upslope cut at ~120 feet below sea level – eventually making zero grade @ north portal. A “cut and cover” could work, as long as one was able to cut the grade back far, and deep enough. And be able to cut down to a workable grade through Belltown to reach north portal, from sodo. take a look at the project elevations…

    http://alkibikeandboard.com/2nd-annual-alki-bike-and-boarddelridge-skateboard-competition-aug-17th/

    As you can see at stage 4 (in the area of AVW & Spring St) the TBM begins the upslope cut. To “cut and cover” the same area, the cuts would have to be roughly **max** 200 feet below grade. A better idea than several billion dollar “mole”? I don’t know. Probably thoroughly vetted and deemed “impossible” – wish the same had been said about the TBM.

  • M. December 18, 2014 (7:57 pm)

    Assuming that the world’s biggest tunnel boring machine will successfully get removed, repaired and fully operational, I wonder what will happen when it encounters another small metal pipe.

  • AlkiAlkaline December 18, 2014 (11:00 pm)

    Tim Burgess and Tom Rasmussen should be relieved of their duties immediately. Corruption and incompetence personified.

    http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/12/16/guest-editorial-seattle-pull-the-plug-on-the-tunnel-unless-you-can-answer-these-seven-questions

  • dsa December 19, 2014 (1:19 am)

    Excellent article AlkiAlkaline
    I’ve been wanting them to halt this project for a long time.

  • Deborah December 19, 2014 (6:36 am)

    Two things need to happen.

    The viaduct needs to be closed before something horrible happens.

    Most importantly, people will have to rethink how they travel and make plans to be inconvenienced for a long while, worth it…to avoid any possible deaths that may occur.

    It’s over people. Live where you work.

    and yes, we are losing a beautiful drive and view that we will never forget.

    As a former West Seattle resident, I’m concerned with the tunnel. It’s an earth quack city and I would not want to be in a tunnel near water when the big one hits.

    Someone at Boeing please build those futuristic hover cars. So you can spy on people at the needle.

    :D

    Maybe they could get creative and use MORE BOATS.

    Water is great transport and the bus loves friends.

    Wait, what’s that? A mono rail! What happened to more of those?

  • kneedler December 22, 2014 (7:18 pm)

    @935 What utter rubbish. Multiple Cut-and-cover options were studied by engineers and they concluded it was technically feasible, cheaper, and was the prefered option by WSDOT.

    http://data.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/viaduct/AWVFEIS-AppendixB.pdf

Sorry, comment time is over.