Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Sound Transit Tunnels Three Months Ahead of Schedule

Posted by on Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Our regional transit agency is getting better at building subways.

Two tunnel boring machines digging routes for a future light-rail line between Capitol Hill and Husky Stadium "have finished their tunneling three months ahead of their original schedule," says Sound Transit spokesman Bruce Gray. The second machine broke through soil and cement at the future Capitol Hill station late last month, as was widely reported, but a Sound Transit schedule from February shows the tunnels weren't slated to be done until June 30.

"Mining is always the always the highest risk part of the project in terms of cost and unknowns," Gray says. It speaks well for the project "any time you can get the tricky part out of the way."

The advanced schedule doesn't yet change the project's overall timeline or guarantee taxpayer savings—Gray explains that many other project components must fall into place before the line is expected to be open in 2016—but it bodes well for accelerating the project's pace.

"The sooner they are done mining, the sooner the contractor building the station can get to work," Gray says. Currently, three of the four 21-foot-wide tunnels that terminate in the Capitol Hill station are complete: both lines to the University District, northbound and southbound, and one of two lines to downtown. The second tunnel between downtown and Capitol Hill, being dug by a machine named Brenda, is arguably less risky now that the parallel line is complete and engineers are familiar with the soil conditions.

Indiana-based tunnel contractor Traylor/Frontier-Kemper, which has a $339 million deal with Sound Transit, has had a "very smooth operation and had very few hiccups," Gray says.

 

Comments (22) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
When running for office Mayor McGinn promised that a vote for another extension of Light Rail would be on the 2012 ballot. That was one of the reasons I voted for him. What has become of that?
Posted by LikeItIs on April 5, 2012 at 2:18 PM
Cato the Younger Younger 2
Is there ever going to be another Slog Happy?
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on April 5, 2012 at 2:22 PM
Fnarf 3
It's funny, because your coverage of the waterfront tunnel mostly revolved around the impossibility of large tunneling projects.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on April 5, 2012 at 2:33 PM
gloomy gus 4
@2, the last Slog Happies may have somehow soured the cost-benefits balance for the Stranger people who used to arrange and attend them.
Posted by gloomy gus on April 5, 2012 at 2:33 PM
Dominic Holden 5

@3) It's funny, that project was totally different from this one (financing, need, soil conditions, traffic diversion, demand, tolls). Not to mention, that 57-foot-wide tunnel, the biggest of its kind, is more than seven times the area of this 21-foot-wide tunnel, a standard size for light-rail tunnels all over the country. My coverage never said the downtown tunnel was impossible, just that it was a risky, impractical, stupidly expensive replacement for the viaduct. This project is far, far less risky and subways have an obvious, proven benefit in high-density cities.

Posted by Dominic Holden on April 5, 2012 at 2:44 PM
undead ayn rand 6
@3: "your coverage of the waterfront tunnel mostly revolved around the impossibility of large tunneling projects."

I didn't get that at all. The coverage revolved around the necessity for that specific implementation over other options. Do you seriously recall anything being said about "impossibility"?
Posted by undead ayn rand on April 5, 2012 at 2:51 PM
Will in Seattle 7
Besides, we still don't have the money for the SR-99 Tunnel, and we just gave away away $200 million of the Seawall money to the NBA/NHL stadium that we don't even have.

And SR-520 is still mostly unfunded on the Seattle side.

UW Husky Stadium station ftw!
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on April 5, 2012 at 3:00 PM
8
Dominic, everyone has the idea that the sound transit tunnel will have more trips on it than the downtown tunnel but the reverse is actually true. The downtown tunnel will have a lot more passenger trips on it than the light rail tunnel is projected to have. Therefore, which one makes sense to spend the most transportation dollars on?!
Posted by dpatrick on April 5, 2012 at 3:01 PM
Fnarf 9
@5, is area the only or even the most significant factor in risk assessment? How much bigger, anyways? (Hint: barely). Soil? You have no idea. Your arguments based on financing, need, etc. (which I agree with) always took a backseat to the hysteria of the engineering angle, which you hyped to the max over and over. The waterfront tunnel is not particularly risky at all from an engineering perspective, however valuable a civic amenity it may or may not be.

@6, the coverage continually harped on the size of the shield, as if that was a particularly difficult hurdle to clear, as if the maximum size of shields hasn't been continually increasing for decades without problems. The coverage repeatedly threw up examples of tunnels with problems, while ignoring the far, far greater number of tunnels with none.

This is what annoyed me about the coverage: it wasn't just blatantly partisan -- I expect that -- but it was biased to the point of dishonesty -- and to the point of ignoring the real arguments against the thing, which were and are persuasive enough.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on April 5, 2012 at 3:06 PM
10
@Will

We haven't given any money for the stadium yet. Even if we do, it's not like we are taking money out of the general or transportation fund to pay for it. We're issuing bonds. Unless those bonds somehow hurt our credit rating it doesn't change the math of paying for the other projects at all.
Posted by arbeck http://www.facebook.com/arbeck on April 5, 2012 at 3:07 PM
undead ayn rand 11
@8: Your question has nothing to do with Dominic's complaints. Did you read any of his articles?

The problem with the tunnel solution was that it was UNNECESSARY to spend that much money, there were cheaper just as viable solutions.
Posted by undead ayn rand on April 5, 2012 at 3:15 PM
12
@8:

When toll diversions and other current viaduct users for whom a downtown bypass is useless were factored in, we were told to expect 40,000 daily trips through the 99 tunnel, right? The majority of which are likely to contain a single passenger.

The downtown-UW light rail segment, meanwhile, will be the most heavily-packed stretch of subway we'll ever build, handling 125,000 daily trips by most estimates.

That is more than 40,000.

Posted by d.p. on April 5, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Fnarf 13
@11, I disagree somewhat -- my position was and is "there are no viable solutions". But I agree about the cost. And even more important for me was not the monetary cost but the terrible, terrible impact of the project in toto, particularly the approaches.

I would also like to withdraw and apologize for the word "dishonesty". Dominic's coverage was not dishonest. I'll try again, with the word "overzealous" in its place, and hope that doesn't sting as much. Overall the Stranger's opposition to the tunnel was a correct opinion; I just take extreme issue with the engineering scaremongering, if that's not too much again. I apologize for being a dick. "Overzealous" is a significant part of my arsenal too.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on April 5, 2012 at 3:51 PM
sloegin 14
Great news that these tunnels projects ran smoothly; of course there's the counter-example of the Brightwater TBM in north King County that got stuck for nearly a year or so.

Maybe the region is just better now at picking contractors for this sort of thing.
Posted by sloegin on April 5, 2012 at 4:00 PM
15
Fnarf, you're using too many words.

CARZ=bad
TRAINZ=good

Posted by Westside forever on April 5, 2012 at 4:17 PM
gloomy gus 16
I'll say about the coverage only that I'm glad there are other dead horses to beat around here these days.
Posted by gloomy gus on April 5, 2012 at 4:53 PM
17
"d subways have an obvious, proven benefit in high-density cities."

So why build in low density Seattle?
Posted by Saving the pwanet? on April 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM
undead ayn rand 18
@17: "So why build in low density Seattle?"

Because Seattle is high density, you mental invalid.
Posted by undead ayn rand on April 5, 2012 at 5:19 PM
Max Solomon 19
gubmint caint do nothin right
Posted by Max Solomon on April 5, 2012 at 8:00 PM
Greg 20
Fnarf, stick to what you're good at. The risk of a tunnel project IS partly a function of the diameter, as well as the depth / groundwater pressures, length, soil conditions, etc. One of the interesting things about TBM tunneling is that the settlement zone of the tunnel is typically figured in a direct ratio to the tunnel diameter. So for the Viaduct replacement you have a very large tunnel, in potentially soft soils, at relatively shallow depth, under some super-expensive real estate. That sounds like a lot of risk to me.

One of the mitigating factors in this case is the extensive drilling that has been done on and around the Viaduct alignment because of the known problems with the shallow fill/tideflat soils. More information is always better. Remember, though, that all soil profiles are interpolations. Drilling results even every 500 feet still aren't perfect information. You never really know where the transitions are from sand to till to clay to silt; you can only make estimates based on what you found in the boreholes.
Posted by Greg on April 5, 2012 at 10:10 PM
slade 21
Im a vote for choo choo! The Mercer Mess and I-5 make choo choo look real real good and guess what? nothing to park and no insurance to by and no tabs to buy and no tolls to pay and no hot lane warm lane cold lane? Choo choo charlie was a engineer!
Posted by slade http://www.youtube.com/user/guppygator on April 6, 2012 at 10:14 AM
22
@18: Compared to any major city settled before WWII, Seattle is low-density. But compared to any suburb built after WWII, Seattle is high-density. And realistically, Seattle (city) will only become denser. We're constrained by geography and the urban growth boundary, and a lot of people want to live here. Building a subway is a great way to enhance mobility without stifling that growth.
Posted by aleks on April 8, 2012 at 4:56 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy