38 Replies to "Alaskan Way Viaduct fake-quake video: How much it cost, etc."

• camp long neighbor October 27, 2009 (5:45 am)

  Personally, I’d like to see the earthquake simulation video for the deep bore tunnel… I’d rather be above ground than under in a flooded tunnel when the big one hits.
  ps i still heart the viaduct

• pam October 27, 2009 (7:12 am)

  My inlaws lived in the bay area at the time of the ’89 earthquake. We went down a few weeks later and their viaduct (can’t remember the exact name of it) looked just like this video. It was horrifying to see the orange spray paint signs marking the DOA areas. I hate driving southbound on our viaduct – for some reason northbound doesn’t bother me as much, guess I feel like I could bounce a bit but maybe not get squashed!

• Fiwa Jcbbb October 27, 2009 (7:34 am)

  I suppose if I were truly frightened by this I could adopt Mike McGinn’s “Surface/Transit” plan for myself, but I don’t have two hours to add to my day (it’s also why I oppose Mike McGinn and you should too if you live in West Seattle…”Let Them Eat Bus” is not leadership), and although I’d love to have a different job closer to home, I haven’t found one yet. So I drive the viaduct every day, and watching that simulated fill liquify makes me wish I could just take my chances with it rather than in a death-trap tunnel.

• Meghan October 27, 2009 (7:47 am)

  The whole point of this video is to show why the viaduct needs to be replaced. It is not only an aesthetic disaster; it is a potential disaster. The only way to take it down while keeping 100,000 cars – and billions of dollars in freight – moving is to build the tunnel and THEN take down the viaduct. This is something that Mike McGinn didn’t seem to grasp… UNTIL he saw the latest polls showing overwhelming support to move forward with the tunnel (after 10 years of negotiations) and peoples’ desire to avoid 6 years of total gridlock – and did a 180 degree flip-flop on his ONE campaign issue (using a NON-BINDING city council vote as a convenient excuse). What a joke of a candidate.

• CB October 27, 2009 (7:54 am)

  They should have produced a video showing the city-wide gridlock if McGinn were elected.

• Scott (no, the other Scott) October 27, 2009 (8:04 am)

  The most interesting part to me that, bafflingly, people still seem to overlook, is the seawall collapse simulation. Whatever your stance on the viaduct, tunnel, surface argument, it’s pretty clear that the seawall needs replaced no matter what (unless you want to cede 3 or 4 blocks of downtown back to the ocean) and as a result, there is going to be a whole lot of expensive digging going on down there anyway.
  .
  I don’t have any idea what the latest cost breakouts look like–I imagine it’s changed with the move to a deep-bore, rather than cut and cover, tunnel–but much of the expense and potential cost-overrun associated with the project were tied as much to the sea-wall replacement as the tunnel construction. And without the tunnel, the city was on the hook for all that by itself. I always thought the tunnel was a great way to get some state help for something we would have to fund by ourselves, otherwise. Not sure why either candidate doesn’t mention any of that. Maybe I am wrong and the equations have all changed since this discussion first started.

• mark October 27, 2009 (8:11 am)

  Go Mike Go!!!!!

  (I like Mike)

• DownOnAlki October 27, 2009 (8:31 am)

  Overwhelming support for the tunnel? What? Versus the surface street option – maybe – lesser of two? Where is this data? I, personally, am not excited to take I5 to get in and out of downtown. I LOVE the viaduct with the ability to EASILY get from West Seattle to downtown. I am not happy about a less-lane tunnel to bypass downtown. Why were all of our options decided for us?

• Cami October 27, 2009 (8:34 am)

  They could have saved $80K and just showed a few photos of the Nimitz collapse in the Bay Area Quake of ’89.

  http://www.vias.org/physics/example_3_1_11.html

• Anne October 27, 2009 (8:40 am)

  I too,would like to see a simulation of what would happen to the tunnel if a mag.7 earthquake hit.I heard someone from DOT on the radio yesterday saying that the deep bore tunnel would be very safe-since it would be below the level of earth that is subject to liquefication.However he said that the entrance/exit to & from tunnel would be more problematic-but didn’t want to expand on that!!

• FromFauntleroy October 27, 2009 (9:07 am)

  Personally, I am not opposed to the tunnel, but I think it’s wise to be skeptical.

  Many people seem to talk like the tunnel will be a exact functional replacement for the viaduct. This is not true. There are no downtown exits. Let me repeat that: there are no downtown exits. This means if you’re going from WS to north Seattle then the two lanes going north might be useful. If you’re going from WS to downtown, you’re on surface streets anyway. It’s a lot of money, imo, to spend on the limited utility it appears to provide.

  I also would like to hear assurances that the tunnel would be immune from the effect of liquefaction. That should be definitively answered before construction begins.

• nuni October 27, 2009 (9:08 am)

  it’s nice to know that either way I go to work I’ll most likely die.

• LE October 27, 2009 (9:09 am)

  Meghan, the state’s original construction plan and engineering plan allowed for most of the new viaduct to be built while the old viaduct was in place and being used.
  .
  The supports were to be built first, immediately adjacent to the old viaduct and then viaduct traffic reduced to four lanes on one level of the viaduct while the first roadway was built on the new viaduct. It was very detailed and specific, and the engineering was already done. Of course there would have been frequent closures, which is why the state’s first step was to install those viaduct closure signs all over the place.
  .
  The tunnel is NOT the only plan out there that keeps traffic moving while solving the problem of the old viaduct. That’s just silly. Our state transportation department spent significant tax dollars getting all the way down to a fairly complete engineering plan, before it was blocked by the old mayor who has basically been thrown out of office at least in part – by some voters, anyway – for the way he lead the tunnel concept.

• Elizabeth Campbell October 27, 2009 (9:43 am)

  People need to know the facts of the seawall – how the City and WSDOT got the cost for this project down is by making a number of sacrifices – capacity, safety, and dumping the bulk of the seawall replacement. Only 10% of it is slated to be replaced, right where the grand City promenade is supposed to go, and after that – no seawall replacement – only band aids over time and a hope and prayer that it doesn’t give way.

  Consider this – Alaskan Way is not just about the Viaduct, but it is considered an important roadway that is needed were some kind of disaster to strike Seattle. But no, WSDOT is too busy blowing through money creating its disaster videos, manipulating every bit of information and hoping the public doesn’t figure out the waste they have created, the safety deficits they plan on exposing people to, and that this project is first and foremost about big business interests, not just here, but worldwide.

  Please visit http://www.scatnow.com or http://www.yesviaduct.com for both a look at what’s going on legally and what proposals we have for a replacement of the Viaduct.

  Thanks,

  ELizabeth Campbell

• Gina October 27, 2009 (9:43 am)

  They should simulate what would happen if 3 feet of snow fell on Seattle.

• flynlo October 27, 2009 (9:57 am)

  RE seawall replacement

  Is the seawall replacement design taking into consideration the coming rise in seawater levels due to global warming?
  Is the design of the south tunnel entrance taking in to consideration the coming rise in seawater levels due to global warming?

• KateMcA October 27, 2009 (10:01 am)

  My first thought on this video was, “Ok, we already know this.” My second thought was, “How much did this little simulation cost?” My third was, “Interesting that they are throwing this out there right now before an election where this is a central issue.” I want to know what the tunnel simulation looks like.

  I still like Mike.

• AJP October 27, 2009 (10:48 am)

  You have a greater chance of dying in a regular car crash on your way to work than in a collapse due to earthquake. You have a greater chance of slipping in your shower and whacking your skull and dying than dying in a collapse due to earthquake. So until this thing gets replaced, don’t worry so much about it.

  Anyone out there remember when the viaduct was built–was there this much whining, complaining, and inability to come to a major consensus?

• Marco October 27, 2009 (10:52 am)

  For $80k they could have at least gotten some music.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53lstqJJ4Oo

• WSB October 27, 2009 (11:22 am)

  Oh, Marco. Actually I’m glad they didn’t use the ominous music from the recent Mallahan vs. McGinn attack ad in which a snippet of our video appeared. It kind of speaks for itself. – TR

• bsmomma October 27, 2009 (11:22 am)

  Hmmmm, a tunnel that goes from West Seattle to North Seattle…. Wasn’t the infamous mono/light rail (that I paid a lot of money for because I HAD to) suposed to go from WS to Ballard? Didn’t that project get scrapped after it wasted all our money? I think, in my own personal opinion, that the SLUT, Tunnel and never happened monorail is one BIG waste of money JOKE! I’m not looking forward to what sort of big problems are going to arise with the tunnel that we as tax payers are going to have to pay for to fix! I am so sick an tired of my hard earned money becoming wasted tax dollars. I think whatever is built, and if there’s no downtown exits will hurt the downtown & waterfront business’ drastically. I for one will not venture down there as often as I do now because I5 will be even more screwed on the weekends!

• bongo October 27, 2009 (11:39 am)

  My family always says “I’m going on the I-HOP” when we drive on the viaduct… you know, “The INternational House of Pancakes”… we know we’ll become pancakes on that thing when it collapses in an Earthquake, yet we continue to drive on it… strange. I hate the idea of a tunnel — I love driving on the viaduct north bound, so beautiful, I can’t imagine going in a yucky tunnel. The only people who benefit from the tunnel are the money hungry developers of the water front property. Do you actually know ANYONE who wants the tunnel who lives in West Seattle? Names please… and rational? I don’t want to be the Grand Slam breakfast on the IHOP, in an Earthquake, but I do believe the IHOP can become a safe place if we only give it a chance and rebuild it better…

• John October 27, 2009 (11:53 am)

  The first building to go was my favorite hotdog stand. I’ll need to go there at lunch today and make sure everything is OK.

  An earthquack will save cost in demolition of the existing Viaduct.

• Kayleigh October 27, 2009 (11:58 am)

  I don’t care if they build George Jetson space pods–I just want a solution. But actually solving the problem and getting *something* built would be so un-Seattle. We should definitely spend another ten years arguing and commissioning studies, so that when the earthquake comes, we can complain about how nothing was done.

• bongo October 27, 2009 (12:05 pm)

  Looks like, in the “simulation” the water in Elliot Bay is pretty calm, business as usual on the ferry there — so maybe build canals and have gondolas or little ferries instead of the viaduct?
  Space pods are a little outrageous. Gondolas… not so outrageous. Perhaps give everyone a segway to get through downtown? And an umbrella?

• Dave October 27, 2009 (12:26 pm)

  I’m with Kayleigh, this city is so gridlocked on doing anything I would pay just to see something happen at this point. Or we could just pay a lot and have people lose their businesses then get nothing like the monorail.

  BTW if the seawall fails in an earthquake all of downtown from 7th Ave down slides into the bay.

• Pete October 27, 2009 (12:34 pm)

  When they built the existing viaduct the debate over what to do lasted for many years until some politicians and citizens of Seattle finally said enough is enough….let us make a decision and go forth and build. I for one am all in favor of the tunnel option. I have been actively involved in the process for several years now. I have attended way more meetings about what to do then I care to remember. I have spent countless hours reading briefing papers, memos and emails about what we should do. After all of the information I have seen I am still totally convinced that the tunnel is the right way to go.
  +++++++++++++++
  You will not need to go to I-5 to get downtown you will simply go on to the downtown street grid by the stadiums. You will choose to go into the tunnel, onto the downtown street grid or towards the waterfront as you head north bound on SR99 coming from West Seattle.
  +++++++++++++++
  So in response to the writier that wanted names of folks that are public about their support of the tunnel option simply go to the WSDOT/viaduct/tunnel website and look at the list of the folks that were on the Stakeholders Advisory Group and you will see those of us that have been in favor of the tunnel long before it was the announced preferred alternative by the Gov and the Mayor.

• Diane October 27, 2009 (12:37 pm)

  it’s gone from 322 hits in couple days to 40,983 views now

• Andrew October 27, 2009 (12:41 pm)

  I currently take the viaduct to go to downtown and I always drive 1st avenue coming back. I agree that I’d rather be on top than squished by all the concrete. I can say with confidence that I will NEVER take the tunnel if it is built.

• D.A. October 27, 2009 (12:57 pm)

  I agree with the tunnel as well. However, I do think some aspects of it are a bit short-sighted. I don’t understand why we must lose a lane in each direction. Because you want us to take public transit? Okay… well then have that infrastructure put in place before you take away the lanes. It does not make sense to me to take away capacity and force people into something that doesn’t exist, workable and usable public transport. Are fewer lanes due to cost? That’s stupid, in my opinion. I think the money they spent on that silly video would have gotten us at least a half mile’s worth of another lane.

• Denise October 27, 2009 (1:38 pm)

  Gina – love your 3 feet of snow comment. Totally cracked me up.

  Elizabeth – do you have a Facebook page dedicated to the no-tunnel movement?

• bsmomma October 27, 2009 (1:51 pm)

  Correct, I guess I could go through SoDo. OK, so I’ll still go downtown. YA! BUT there is NO WAY you’ll EVER catch me in the tunnel if it’s built. The thought of a car accident happenning and being stuck in a 2 lane tunnel….under water……during rush hour…. makes me want to throw up.

• bongo October 27, 2009 (2:43 pm)

  OK Pete — but I thought I WAS a stakeholder too! I’m responding to your post below:
  So in response to the writier that wanted names of folks that are public about their support of the tunnel option simply go to the WSDOT/viaduct/tunnel website and look at the list of the folks that were on the Stakeholders Advisory Group and you will see those of us that have been in favor of the tunnel long before it was the announced preferred alternative by the Gov and the Mayor.
  Check out the advisory committee:
  http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/EA8D93BF-A5A7-44C8-8501-4D4EEF3BFDB1/0/SAC_Roster_Oct08.pdf

  I do not understand how the city can replace the viaduct with a tunnel that will not even provide the same amount of volume/traffic flow that the old viaduct currently does — the tunnel is inferior to the viaduct already and it hasn’t even been built.

• westello October 27, 2009 (6:22 pm)

  I’m surprised that no one seems to get that it takes a very long time for public disclosure to work and then most public entities make the decision at will. Odd they decided to do it for KING 5 even though the original request was from a citizen. It takes the threat of media coverage to let us know how our tax dollars are spent? And how convenient for the Governor, who likes Mallahan, that it comes out a week before the election?

  I sincerely believe the Viaduct is dangerous. But if it is, why did they let us continue to use it for years? I get that it would have cut off West Seattle and been terrible for traffic but either it’s dangerous or not. An earthquake could have happened anytime. As it is, with the tunnel option, it won’t come down until around 2015. Cross your fingers we won’t shake!

• Donn October 27, 2009 (8:18 pm)

  I want my $80,000 back. What health or education program got cut to produce this video? Maybe they can get Nintendo or Microsoft to pony up and to use this as a basis for their next video game.

• wseye October 27, 2009 (10:06 pm)

  Personally, I couldn’t believe that a video of this quality could be produced for $80,000. It uses some very complex engineering modeling, and it sure helped me understand why the existing viaduct can’t be retrofitted.

  As for McGinn, my problem with his plan to save the world is that it involves killing it first. We can’t afford to have obstructionists running our city.

• old timer October 27, 2009 (11:15 pm)

  If that video is accurate, it is a crime to allow it to be open even one day more.
  It was closed after the Nisqually earthquake, and we managed.
  It should be shut down right now.
  We’ll soon figure out what we really need.
  Seriously, that’s a horrible event they picture, and it could happen tonight.
  Shut it down.

• Pablo October 28, 2009 (1:01 am)

  I’m not exactly sure why McGinn wants to both call shenanigans by alleging that the manner in which the video was released was meant to help Malahan and then, in the same interview, say that his plan will bring down the viaduct sooner anyways. Since both candidates endorse plans that include the removal of the viaduct, the only person I can see this helping is McGinn both on causing earthquake related tunnel doubt and reinforcing his often repeated allegation that Malahan’s support to the tunnel is a plot to line his donor’s pockets with profit.

Sorry, comment time is over.