Deep Bore Tunnel Public Forum Fri at the Market

[captainDave]

JoB: the two proposed tunnel routes are actually roughly the same length. The upland route has less legal issues since it is within existing public right-of-way. It is also though ground that is high and dry above the sea level. The cost per mile estimate is based on research Cascadia had done for the lowland route. I do not know how much less it would be for the highland (6th Ave) route. – presumably, less difficulty will result in some cost savings. Cascadia explained last night at the meeting that they have been pretty conservative with estimates to ensure that they would be on the high side. That is why they were not pleased when WSDOT padded those estimates with even higher costs.

How to Pay for it? We are pushing to include both tunnel rouets into an EIS (Environmental Impact Study) so that it can go to the next step of being costed out by the DOT. Our plan can be modular. in other words, it is possible for the tunnel to be built and utilized before the SoDo Expressway portion is built.

Share This

[JoB]

CaptainDave..

Some aspects of this trouble me…

in the first place, it doesn’t look like the two routes are equal in length.. and if they are it appears there must be some surface or elevated transport that has to be constructed with the 6th av route…

and while the 1st Av route has deep core samples existing for 70% of the route… you don’t mention any existing core samples for the upper route… on which your supposition that it will be easier drilling should be based.

The lower route is above the tide level… though i don’t know if it is deep enough to be in rock…

so is it easier to drill through clay or rock? certainly rock is easier to remove…

and doesn’t it being above the tide level eliminate a few of those agencies that you say have to work together to get this thing built?

you asked me earlier why i assumed that the 6th av bore would be more difficult that the light rail bore… i base that assumption upon it’s length, it’s depth, and the increased number of subterranean obstacles in it’s path.. it’s proximity to other tunnels existing along parts of it’s route and to the I-5 ditch next to it… not to mention the difficultly of isolating the tunnel bore sites and resulting construction traffic from the existing core area urban travel patterns…

as for your statement that your plan would be modular… isn’t that another way of saying you are selling a plan that will be only partially funded by the cost analysis that is generated?

In a tunnel to tunnel comparison, the 6th Av tunnel might not look so good in comparison to the 1st Av tunnel without that SoDo expressway.. and as we know all too well, even with a mandate.. there is really no guarantee that would ever be built…

the monofail was a great idea… had a mandate… and didn’t get built.

Let’s look apples to apples.. because so far we have no guarantee that anyone is bringing caramel to the party to dip them in….

How much of my taxpayer money do you want to spend so that we can analyze the possibility of a system that will be only partially funded and may never connect up to West Seattle in any meaningful way at all?

You probably have enough clout to carry this at least that far.. as a marketer.. you are good.

But i am not convinced that it’s in the public’s best interests to be spending our very limited funds right now so that this project can get political bandwidth…

How much is that review going to cost us????

did you know that they have already cut funds for social services and schools… and are probably going to take a big bite out of the medical safety net that those under medicare age currently have? And that cuts in funding will only get worse as unemployment rises? Did you know Boeing is talking about laying off 2000 people this year?

It might be easy to write off the aged and socially disenfranchised..

but not fully funding schools is bankrupting our future human capital…

and we can’t just build that later.

So explain to us again why it is good for us.. the working people of west seattle.. to fund the preliminary reports that will have to be done before this option can even be considered at this time….

Share This

[captainDave]

Length: While there is no information available that I have found regarding the exact locations of the tunnel portals on the lowland route, I am told that it is proposed to be aprox 2.2 miles. An Odometer reading of the 6th between the proposed portals is also about 2.2 miles.

I am not aware of core samples on the 6th Ave route. However, the depth of the tunnel may not be much deeper than the basements of some of the buildings on either side, so there is a fair amount of data available I am told due to the various construction projects over the years.

Tide Level: You are incorrect to state that the lower route is above tide level. The surface streets in the SoDo District are only about 4 feet above high tide. The 1903 rail tunnel under Seattle is also about 4 to 6 feet above sea level. For the lowland tunnel route to get below the first and second avenue street level and rail tunnel, it will need to be constructed well below sea level. A scientist specializing in urban coastlines, who attended our meeting last night, stated that coastal cities should not plan to build critical infrastructure near the shore due to the potential of sea level rise over the next 50 years. It is also not a comforting though that there is evidence the the Puget Sound has experienced 15 to 30 tsunamis from seismic events in the past. – which could flood a lowland tunnel.

Clay or rock? I am recently told that modern boring machines self adjust their cutters to accommodate a wide range of substrates and that the diameters that we are looking at move at about 35 ft per day regardless of substrates. Soft wet ground does still have more challenges however. As far as obstructions, there is more of a chance of running into some uncharted obstructions along the lower route. There is an unknown number of large iron ship hulls that were beached and buried in the vicinity of the SoDo District prior to the tide flats being filled in.

Agencies: I don’t know specifically where the cut off is for the different agencies that deal with shoreline issues.

Modular: In this case, I believe it would be better for Seattle to build toward an integrated infrastructure then to patch things together based on a 60 year old layout. However, I agree that in plan view (without the SoDo Expressway) the First Avenue alignment would be better. However, It seems to me (based on the WSDOT elevation illustrations) that there may be some rather steep hills to contend with because of the depth of the lowland tunnel route. – This will be a problem for trucks especially at rush hour. With the SDOT updates to the West Seattle Freeway, there will be a lot more people heading into town along 4th avenue, so I do not believe that the miss alignment of the 6th Ave entrance would be all that dysfunctional of a situation since there are a number of large intersections between 4th and 6th. The city owns 100 ft of right-of-way down 6th so there is a lot that can be done there on the cheap if need be.

Tax payer money: There is always a need to monitor the balance between the costs of study vs. action. I wish I did not have to get involved in this as I would have wanted (and expected) our government to consider and weigh out all obvious corridor alignments instead of focusing so much energy on the congested waterfront for so long. The only reason I am involved is because I believe that our tax money is not being spent for the better interests of everyone who lives here. $1.1 billion of the $2.8 billion is already committed to reworking the stretch of roadway south of the viaduct. – mostly to benefit the Kingdom of the Port of Seattle. With the world economies in the tank, and imports drastically down, the last thing we need to do is expand our port facilities. You speak of wasting money? How about getting the Port of Seattle to work in conjunction with the Port of Tacoma so that washington tax payers did not have to fund the competitive battles they have with each other. Between the two ports, they now have excess capacity than what will be needed for years to come. Why should a bunch of the viaduct replacement money be used to expand port capability at this time? The plans were drafted at the top of an inflated market and have not been changed to accommodate current (and projected) economic conditions. This new port-centric infrastructure may become obsolete before it is ever needed.

Why it should be studied: It is critical to keep the main arterioles flowing efficiently for the people who work and live here.- now and in the future. A traffic system needs to be designed to support domestic business over foreign trade if we are going to have a sustainable local economy to fund social services and schools. According to some experts who have looked at our plan, it is possible that it offers a more balanced solution for the general population of Seattle.

Share This

[JoB]

CaptainDave…

Have you driven the roadways connecting to our port area much lately? i did during the storm and have to agree that the area is in dire need of improvement.. and that need will only increase with the investment currently going into SoDo… investment that has little to do with our uber-competetive port…

and.. isn’t that a moot point anyway? That work will be done regardless of which, (if any) option, is eventually built…

so what we are really looking at is cost above and beyond… not eliminating that cost with either plan…

as for the tunnel grade… is truck traffic during rush hour really going to be a huge issue there? my understanding is that the majority of the truck traffic on the viaduct now service the downtown core area which wouldn’t be likely to be in tunnels that have no access to the core area…

and.. there is a huge distance between 6th av and hiway 99.. so something would have to be built to take traffic from the existing 99 to 6th to enter the tunnel…

from the standpoint of integration to the existing freeway network in Seattle, i can see why a 6th Av bore would make sense…

but any way you look at it, it looks like a lot more money by the time you build all of the connecting arterials that would make this plan make sense… and right now i am not so sure it is money well spent…

i have to wonder if it wouldn’t be a better idea to do a future plan for a tunnel that bypasses the downtown core area and connects to the other freeways (the 6th Av bore) … actually relieving I-5 congestion..

instead of using the current need for a viaduct replacement to construct a bypass tunnel that connects up to aurora avenue….

because without substantial federal dollars.. any other use for that tunnel is a future projection that may well come to nothing…

and without public transit options… (or trains as you propose) those dollars seem less likely…

Share This

[CB]

JoB, I followed this thread in the early days, and have just now returned. I also missed the meeting and this is helpful to catch up. There’s a lot of data to sift through and you have done much research. Just to base line me, which of the three alternatives do you support?

Share This

[captainDave]

JoB:

Yes, I have driven the the port lately. There is far less containers and shipping activity then there was two years ago. The port has had many upgrades in recent years to accommodate what was thought to be a never-ending growth of imports. Then the US dollar fell, …then the ballon bursted. Now we have multi-million dollar cranes sitting idle most of the time just rusting in the wind. Tacoma has the same problem. My point is to reduce spending on port facilities when it comes to using transportation funds.

Tunnel grade: I was a truck driver for many years and can’t tell you how pissed off people get at trucks on hills durring rush hour. Best example is to observe loaded trucks stop and start up on the South Center I-5 grade. They don’t accelerate like cars. This has an amplified effect on rush hour traffic. You are absolutely wrong about most of the truck traffic exiting for downtown. There are statistics available through SDOT.

Offset from old 99 route: There is not a huge distance between 99 and first avenue when you look at how the majority of the traffic enters the corridor at the 1st Ave South Bridge. There is actually less stop lights between the 1st Ave South Bridge and the starting point of our proposed SoDo Express Way (at Diagonal St.) than there is on the original 99 route. There are also no railroad crossings either on 1st. Even without the SoDo Expressway, it is easy to get from the 1st Ave South Bridge to 4th via the Michigan St. Exit. – not that it is ideal. Also remember that SDOT is in process to adding a 2-lane west bound exit from the West Seattle Freeway to 4th Ave.

Freeway Integration: Our proposed SoDo Expressway does just that. It makes it easier for Ballard and West Seattle to reach I-90 without getting on I-5. – Thus reliving pressure on I-5. But also, by virtue of the I-90 interchange, it also makes it easier for Ballard to get to south bound I-5.

Money: I would like to have trust in our leaders to make prudent decisions balancing both the short term and long term needs of our city. It seems to me that Seattle has been plagued over the decade with short sighted decision making which has lead us to now having to contemplate such large scale projects. If the city had only kept some of its road and transit rail line right of ways that it had in the early part of the century, then these things would not be such a problem. We think the upland route can be more than just a fix for the viaduct, but rather an integrated solution to fixing a number of costly traffic problems that are suppressing our ability to effectively use the city.

Share This

[JoB]

Captain Dave…

Yes, there is less port traffic right now.. which makes it the perfect time to fix the road system servicing both the port and SoDo before it picks up again.. because it inevitably will.

Right now is a good time to do the work while there aren’t so many complaints of it disrupting commerce.. and as a bonus.. we can get it done cheaper in the current economy…

Seattle has been a major port on the West Coast from it’s inception… and the geographic location, deep harbor and access to both rail and truck transport have not changed.

Now is the perfect time to work on the infastructure that drives all commerce (including the light industry in SoDo and the retail warehouses) and thus jobs…

I often drive the route suggested from 509 to the train station area taking hubby to work… and am very familiar with that route…

so.. your high tech solution to the transportation system in Seattle is to bring traffic in on an aurora like exchange in the south.. and then dump it out at the other end in an aurora like exchange in the north?

All so that we get the benefit of two spots where exchanges to current freeways East can be made…

I know, you intend to fix that eventually with a SoDo expressway.. but when is eventually? My guess is that it is long after the exchanges feeding traffic in east metro are built…

And how exactly does that help people in Ballard get into town and around town?

how would this move truck and thru traffic off I-5 and thru Seattle?

the bonus of the viaduct is that at the north end a short surface option connects you right up to I-5 …

the amount of truck and thru traffic on the viaduct is due in a large part to the easy ability to bypass the majority of the I-5 gridlock in downtown Seattle. I know, i have been using it for decades to do just that.

And if the WSDOT figures show the majority of the truck traffic on the viaduct hours is thru traffic.. why do the figures quoted by the Pike Place Market differ so much?

Could it be that WSDOT is counting total truck traffic including that which uses that route in the off business hours?

I am not against a sixth street deep bore tunnel as an I-5 bypass.. i think that is a great idea…

but as a fix to the viaduct and the traffic patterns off 99?

i am still not convinced…

Share This

[JoB]

CB..

you know, i am conflicted….

i like the idea of a deep bore tunnel replacing the viaduct.. but i would want to know if a deep bore tunnel could go where they wanted to place the closed trench tunnel.. basically under watefront way…

thus reinforcing the sea wall and creating a replacement for the viaduct without seriously disrupting business along the waterfront..

gotta run.. i am late.. i will come back to this later… sorry.

Share This

[captainDave]

JoB:

I am not clear why the Port of Seattle is really all that good for the local economy. The number of people they employ per ton of freight is declining every year. It only takes a fraction of the number of stevedores that was once required to unload a ship before containerized freight. The goods being unloaded are largely headed for other parts of the country. The port makes a tidy little profit on the handling costs, which they turn around and spend on expansion projects that employ people only for short periods of time during construction. The Port of Seattle is striving to do more with less labor to stay competitive.

There are many who believe we have concluded one of the longest stretches of escalating prosperity in modern times. The disparity between the US and third world countries who make our goods is closing. When we emerge from this economic downturn, the opportunities to exploit lower labor costs in foreign counties will most likely diminish. For those who believe in peak oil theory, shipping costs will be higher per ton as fuel costs increase. When the Mexican mega port in Punta Colonet opens in about 2013 , it will further reduce imports through US West Coast ports by providing a cheaper and faster freight route to the center of the US.

There are a lot of reasons why the Port of Seattle will not sustain the foreign shipping growth it has enjoyed in the past couple of decades. Nor will it be a reliable source of income for any significant number of residents working the docks since more and more of the container handling equipment is becoming automated. The expansion plans for the southern portion of the SR99 viaduct route are no longer valid and should be recast to fit reality now that the bubble has burst. – So, I belive that you may be dead wrong that things have not changed. – Things have changed with regard to the needs of the Port of Seattle.

I do agree with revitalizing the SoDo District. It has the ability to develop into something similar to the San Francisco SoMa district. I think either tunnel plan supports this objective as long as a peaceful surface street corridor from SoDo to the Waterfront and Pioneer Square is maintained. I believe that the upland 6th Ave route will have a slightly better chance of doing this as there would be less thru-traffic congestion around the ball parks.

Aurora like exchange: none of the plans are discussing the elimination of stop lights in the north and south sectors of Aurora Ave. as far as I know. As mentioned before, the SoDo Expressway plan would result in less traffic lights between the 1st Ave bridge than the old route.

When?: I would like to see the whole thing done at once, but I am not an expert on funding. There are smart people behind every solution offered for replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct (except maybe Frank Chopp’s waterfront strip mall). The surface street proponents say that there is enough roads leading in to the city. I personally don’t think that is true. However, (worst case scenario) in the event the state doesn’t find enough money, then it could happen that the upland tunnel route is the least costliest way to go when all is said and done due to the legalities and practicalities. I would much rather have a tunnel built that can be coupled an expressway later, then to maybe end up with a surface street plan and no tunnel because too many difficulties were discovered on the lowland route. I am convinced that a tunnel is the only real solution for Seattle (either bored tunnel route). Having multiple options is a good idea if we don’t want to see it fail.

Reducing Trucks on I-5: For northbound traffic, we were not planning on moving any more truck traffic off I-5 than what already diverts at Tukwilla onto 599. However, we can move a bunch of Burien and West Seattle commuter traffic headed for the east side directly to I-90. Thus reducing I-5 Traffic. We think that truckers will prefer to take the Tube under the city to reach I-90 and Southbound I-5 rather than to use Mercer. Our plan is to use the existing Battery Street Tunnel as an on-and off-ramp (as mentioned earlier). However, it is not clear wether the rework project that SDOT has planned on Mercer Street will be more efficient for Ballard traffic too. Our plan is not requiring any specific work north of the Battery Street Tunnel entrance.

Share This

[JoB]

CB.. sorry about that.. an excursion was followed by an impromptu nap:)

if i had to choose one of the tunnel options right now.. it would be the first av tunnel option…

either way i hope the governor’s office overrules the task force recommendation for two 4 lane one ways with times lights in the middle of our biggest tourist districts…

that option would undo the work of the last decade to make the waterfront walkable…

Share This

[CB]

JoB, thanks.

Share This

[JoB]

captaindave…

i hope the 6th av tunnel in an expanded form with the freeway connectors and with the SoDo expressway is still on the drawing board for a comprehensive plan for a later date.

it is basically a good idea…

Share This

[Author]

Posts