Because a deep-bore tunnel as wide as the one approved by legislators this week has literally never been attempted anywhere in the world. (Of course, the Discovery Institute thinks it can be done without cost overruns, and who are we to question them?)
UPDATED: Sorry for the subscriber-only link; here’s an excerpt:
Tunnel boring machines are getting bigger, and it is now possible to build one that is 54 feet in diameter, big enough to hold a tunnel with two 12-foot traffic lanes in each direction, with a 4-foot shoulder on the left and an 8-foot shoulder on the right. The lanes would be stacked inside the tunnel.
To construct a twin-bored tunnel, WSDOT would have had to drill two 40-foot-diameter tunnels as well as cross passages to link them.
“And you have to mine those (cross passages) pretty much by hand,” said John Reilly, a Massachusetts-based consultant who is working on the viaduct project.
The single tunnel will be 54 feet in diameter, wider than any other such tunnel in the world.
Last year two 51-foot diameter tunnels were built in Shanghai, China, according to a report by Arup that was commissioned by the Cascadia Center, which is part of the Discovery Institute. A forceful advocate for the bored tunnel, Cascadia paid Arup $35,000 for that report, according to Cascadia’s policy director, Bruce Agnew.
Please don’t send us to subscriber-only links. I’m curious to know what this means — widest how? Because it’s not the largest DIAMETER hole, unless I’m mistaken — and the technology for these cutters is extremely settled and straightforward.
I’m sure I’m missing something, but I can’t read the article to find out what it is. Your scare quote isn’t really helping.
The Discovery Institute’s nutjob creationist agenda aside, their transit stuff is usually pretty good — not particularly innovative, but they aggregate articles of value.
The perspective of the fruit-growers is in fact extremely important, not just for the fruit but for trade in general — by far our most important economic resource. Despite the fantasies of a peaceful, calm, depopulated waterfront park, we are a major port — and making that port work better is infinitely more important than improving the experience of imaginary waterfront strollers and cafe-sippers.
The main problem, other than the fact that the Discovery Instititute is full of loons like they are, is that we literally do not know the actual composition of the proposed tunnel materials or the underlying “soils”.
But, hey, so long as we’re just doing what billionaires want us to do and they’re not paying for it, who cares?
is a deep bore tunnel next to the bay and in an earthquake zone a good idea?
@3 A deep bore tunnel would be fine seismically. The boring process would likely remove all liquefiable soils and the confining pressure of the surrounding soils would prevent any collapse of the structure itself. The structure itself would be way safer than what is there now. Now the seismic performance of the tunnel entrances…I don’t know.
And with the very real possibility of rising sea levels I don’t think a tunnel right next to water is all that great of an idea.
Can’t the Discovery Institute just have G-d bore that tunnel?
We our transit options to be intelligently designed.
Fnarf…the waterfront is not an either/or. It is both a working port and a pedestrian/recreational destination. Livability and tourism are vital to the economy of Seattle as well. Your view would have us ignore the real and meaningful addition that the sculpture park has added to the livability of Seattle.
Whether or not Seattle, alone, should be on the hook for the cost overruns on the Tunnel is a question that shouldn’t even be considered. If Gregoire has any integrity, she’ll end this discussion. If ending that question ends the tunnel, then the tunnel is not feasible. Period. This game of “we don’t really mean it” is unbecoming of politicians who want to claim to have integrity.
@2, it’s too bad the tunneling companies don’t have any engineers who could address your inane concerns. Nope; I’m sure they just point the thing at the ground and let ‘er rip, and hope for the best.
My main concern is actually the existing hundred-year-old deep bore tunnel owned by the BNSF that dips up to 125 feet under downtown. Although it looks like they’re going to kind of go around it. But, in general, if my understanding is correct, what holds up bores like this isn’t soils but rather other stuff that’s in soil, like unmapped water/sewer/steam/gas/electric/who the hell knows what. Not to mention archaeological finds, such as Duwamish burial grounds.
@8: yes, if you want, I will explicitly dismiss the sculpture park. It’s not in and of itself a worthless amenity; but it’s (a) not at the port; (b) not right downtown; and (c) not even remotely appropriate for those locations. It’s boring and irrelevant.
For all the squawking about “Embarcadero!” and so on, there are no good examples of cities that have torn out the working heart of their central hub and replaced it with, uh, grass — because such examples are impossible. For starters, San Francisco is not a port; waterfront beautification projects are inevitably pointless laughingstocks in places that don’t matter, or retrofits of waterfronts that ceased to be working places decades ago. Seattle can’t afford a South Street Seaport or Battery Park City; there’s too much stuff going on there still.
Unless you want to just permanently move the region’s port entirely to Tacoma. But that would have pretty dreadful consequences for the viability of Seattle as a tax base.
@Fnarf: I thought they were going to do a mix of a large blvd, for many freight vehicles that won’t be allowed to go into the tunnel, and some green space to the west, by the water. Having a tunnel is just a quick way for people to get through the downtown, without exit points clogging it up.
So in essence you have a quick way through the city and a large blvd on top, providing even more means to move freight and cars.
@Fnarf: Also, you increase land values, you increase taxes on that land value…
Who gives a shit what the Discovery Institute has to say about – well – anything? Haven’t they lost any credibility they ever had with the intelligent design thing?
Who are these people and why haven’t they moved to Dumbfuckistan?
How about the Discovery Institute make us a bet? If god exists, the tunnel will come in on time and on budget. If there are delays and/or overruns, then it’s proof positive that god doesn’t exist and they pick up the tab for the overruns.
I have a sure fire method for avoiding cost over runs on wine.
@11, Putting the bulk of the traffic in the tunnel opens up the top for other uses, including much easier freight movement. Actually, my understanding is that they are replacing the southern part of the viaduct, which is right in the middle of the worst freight congestion, with a new side-by-side viaduct, which project is already staging down there (just south of the Royal Brougham offramp, if I’m not mistaken). This new viaduct will all by itself greatly improve rail and truck access to the port. So that’s good.
I’m actually not a huge fan of the tunnel; just a huge opponent of the “surface option”. I think the plans for the top surface, over the tunnel, are tragic and lifeless, possibly even more so than the surface option — just minus the traffic blizzard on the boulevard, which will be mostly deserted now (except for trucks and ferry traffic). Everything I’ve seen, not just here but in other cities, suggests that the knowledge of how to build the kind of “vibrant waterfront” that people are imagining from the planning tools we have available to us is IM-POSS-I-BLE. What we’re going to get is a windswept wasteland (and probably a homeless encampment) which all sensible people, and tourists, will flee as quickly as they can for the real city just up the hill — where it is now, in fact.
I’m not seeing a ton of upwardly valued land, though I suppose there will be new views.
Back when God was doing Intelligent Design, He made man in his image, but the resulting spaghetti and meatball creatures were eaten by roving humans.
Ever since then God has preferred to remain invisible and thwart the best laid plans of men to build tunnels.
Fnarf…your points just don’t make any sense to me.
I’m a fan of the surface option, and a fan of the port.
First, I think you ascribe too much value to the viaduct as a mover of freight related to port activities. This is a misconception that is rampant.
But, otherwise, despite your lack of faith in anyone’s ability to find a better use for the waterfront, are you suggesting that building an elevated highway along the waterfront of Seattle is the best possible use of that space? If not best, damn good? Are you suggesting that this space cannot be improved in any way?
Or are you just bitter about parks and urban design and livability issues all around?
…and btw, there are no specific plans, in place, for the area now occupied by the viaduct. There are some conceptions, but nothing set yet. So, Fnarf’s cries of doom and gloom seem to be tilting at windmills.
Fnarf…what would you propose for that area?
Michael McGinn made the same point about the width of the tunnel in his statement on Wednesday:
Sources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcssGa94s…
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id…
As a former employee of the Port of Oakland (whose freight capacity exceeds Seattle’s) I can tell you the viaduct/tunnel issue isn’t a limiting factor to the Port’s future profitability. Instead step up the effort to replacing those snow sheds in the mountain passes to accomodate double stack railroad cars.
How often do you see tractor trailers loaded with shipping containers on the viaduct? answer: rarely, most trucks load/unload well south of central core and head directly to I-90 and I-5. Besides once stricter emissions standards kick in rail and union truck operators will squeeze out the owner operators who may park along Alaskan Way S. It’s the local small load trucks and delivery drivers who’ll miss the downtown exits SR 99 currently provides.
Besides as far as the Port is concerned opening the waterfront up plays hand in hand with their downtown cruise ship berths. Now if we could only get them to wean off that property tax receipts..
Erica: Would 54′ be the inside diameter or outside diameter?
I remain unconvinced that a deep-bored tunnel would be cheaper or better than a cut-and-cover tunnel. Aside from the problem of precedent – there’s a reason no one in the world has yet constructed a single-bore tunnel that big – there is so much risk in the tunneling that cost overruns are inevitable.
There are also grades to be considered. Any deep-bored tunnel will have to make wide, stately turns both because of the limitations of the machine excavating it and the requirements on superelevations, sight distances, etc. for highways in both directions. It has to connect to the surface on both ends and go way deep in the middle.
Another issue with deep bored tunnels is ground settlement and voids. What would happen if a sinkhole opened up under Second Avenue? Or if the Washington Mutual building settled half a degree? My understanding is that the bigger the tunnel diameter, the greater the surface settlement. I don’t know of any really big tunnels that go directly under a city’s urban core.
And then of course there’s the BNSF tunnel. Wherever it is, it’s likely a big obstacle for any SR 99 tunnel near the waterfront.
Then there’s the seawall. A cut-and-cover tunnel would use a brand-new, stronger seawall as its western side, integrating the two systems. A deep-bore tunnel would still require seawall replacement. (Sorry waterfront businesses, you’re pretty much screwed no matter what happens.) As long as we’re tearing up the whole length of Alaskan Way, we might as well replace it with something good. A cut-and-cover tunnel is likely to be cheaper, safer, faster, and better than a crazy 54′ stacked-roadway TBM tunnel.
(Disclaimer: I’m not a pro at this, I’m just a guy who took a class in college examining the Viaduct and trying to design a replacement.)
Yap, the tunnel is unproven, 98% un-engineered, and very expensive as it stands at this moment. Use the viaduct until it becomes too unusable, tear it down, rebuild 520 (BIG BUCKS$ there), put those bitchin’ light rail lines all over the f’ing place (aren’t you guys excited for LINK!?), and repave Mercer for the time being. We got some huge deficits in tax receipts coming in this state people, and since the sales and income taxes (too bad on that one) are dead for this term of the legistlature, we need to be thinking of investments for people and goods for the future..not more car-based BS.
About that BNSF tunnel…I had no idea it was even there until I took the train up to the ‘couve last weekend..wow. That combined with the non-wait at the border and a 5minute customs check at the train station up there–was absolutely fantastic. I wondered how old it was. I love that idea for rail tunnels all over the city tho. Any way we can get that car tab tax up a little higher?
@2: that’s what the drilling rigs all over downtown are determining.
I chug a bottle of red wine and the over runs don’t seem such a big deal…
Bunch of cowards.
They should deep-bore a tunnel from downtown to West Seattle across the bay. That’s what REAL MEN would do.
Hmmmn..a deep bore in west seattle? Sounds like our former Mayor Gridlock.
my biggest gripe is those in favor of the viaduct (or tunnel) for through-traffic who want an intersection at the sports stadiums. are you serious? that would kill any through traffic on game days, creating a traffic nightmare.
exit and on-ramp on royal brougham? okay? intersection at royal brougham? no way.
Hey! There’s never been a monorail built like ours, either, so let’s go ahead and build that monorail, too! Afterall, what sort of cost-overruns could the monorail have that a 54-foot wide waterfront couldn’t have…
Ok, that’s an attempt at sarcasm, a horribly failed attempt. Let me capture my first reaction:
HOLY FUCKING SHIT WHAT?!?! We’re going to attempt the impossible/not-impossible, just really expensive, and when it fails (within initial budget) the city has to foot the bill?
That’s what scares me. Whole lot of nuthin’ is my best guess. The government and the PWC can paint pretty watercolors all day long, but those are worse than meaningless: they’re misleading. And, if you look at them with an eye used to seeing pretty architectural renderings, you’ll see that they look positively EVIL in terms of usable working city.
Your comment @18 misses the point: moving freight ON the viaduct is not the issue. The issue is lifting the mass of traffic over or under the port access. What would be groovy is gaining direct access to the cranes by the trains, which you don’t currently have.
I’m not saying there aren’t arguments against the deep bore; I’m just saying that (a) “gosh, we’ve never done it before” isn’t one of them, and (b) the claim that there aren’t arguments FOR it is false. In a perfect world, they’d leave the viaduct alone and drill a deep-bore TRANSIT tunnel with capacity for multiple connections out, so we could have a subway system instead of the completely shitfucked bus tunnel with hopelessly inadequate and unexpandible light rail. But that option’s not on the table, and the big mistake there was made 20 years ago (which fiasco ought to answer Greg’s question @23 — though admittedly along the waterfront wouldn’t be as disruptive as Third Avenue).
@22, BNSF tunnel opened in 1904.
Fnarf…still, you haven’t made any persuasive arguments about what should or shouldn’t be done on the waterfront. Even your arguments against the various proposals don’t really address substantive issues.
You seem to be caught into this notion that our waterfront is a working, industrial waterfront only. Which isn’t true. At all. The industrial use of the waterfront is largely grouped to the south end of the Seattle Waterfront. The middle part is almost entirely tourist/pedestrian.
You claim that in a perfect world, you’d leave the Viaduct in place. Who’s creating unrealistic and impossible dream scenarios now? 😉 The truth is, the viaduct is coming down. I asked you what you’d put in it’s place. Again, if you think that an elevated freeway, larger in size by almost 50% of the current footprint, is the best use of Seattle’s busiest tourist and pedestrian area, then I think you’re simply in denial about how important these aspects of Seattle are to both visitors and residents, including those residents who work in the industrial areas of Seattle.
Livability of a city is not only about industry.
Fnarf, a tunnel for transit would be the way to go for certain..but we must get light rail across i-90 before 520 goes down (none of this talk about keeping 520 open while a new one gets built) or commuting will be horrible any way you cut it all over. We’ll be looking at a 4 hr rush hour traffic twice a day within 10 years based on the most conservative projections. Those projects should be the ones being focused on and fast-tracked before any viaduct nonsense about dropping $4B+ on a tunnel mainly for cars.
That BNSF tunnel is sweet/nasty as hell, its a great way to leave Seattle though. I got to thinking about the tunnels and how great the downtown bus tunnel will be when they just have trains running through it and no busses (when U-link is done)…that’ll be a poor excuse for a subway but its what we are going to have..someday there will be a line that splits and goes to West Seattle/White Center possibly in a tunnel, and the best thing for the waterfront would be a slightly elevated LINK line (almost like the one Vancouver has on its waterfront) that runs up to Interbay and N. Ballard (finally) that would probably be in a partial tunnel on the way up there. But another tunnel through downtown all the way just for cars? Every single one of our transit dollars really has to count now, no more fucking around.
I don’t care what they do with the traffic from the viaduct when it comes down (and it is coming down, and won’t be replaced). I’d prefer a surface option but aside from the expense a tunnel for through-traffic with everyone else getting off north or south of downtown works just as well.
What it most important is what happens on the surface. In an ideal universe we’d have broad sidewalks and street parking on both sides, with a mix of uses drawing in pedestrians, and whatever road could fit between. The problem is that the existing buildings on the east side of the viaduct are too far away to orient to the street in its current alignment and an alignment under the viaduct would put the buildings to the west too far away. There’s not room to add in another block, either. Putting in a street car or surface light rail sounds nice until you realize what a wide barrier to pedestrians that would create. There’s probably a workable arrangement but it hasn’t been presented yet. Fnarf is right to worry that without taking time to plan the surface first we’re going to end up with a wasteland.
They’re not tearing down the viaduct till the tunnel is completed. At the rate they’re going, I expect to be driving on it 25 years from now, and loving every minute of it.
Oh well, if the Discovery Inst’s say it’s okay, it’s okay… they know design when they see it.
Let’s put the DI on the hook for the overruns. They have too much money.
I think he had suggested a slightly elevated LR line that people could walk under–much less gnarly than the walk under 99 now. It is cramped down there..
You left out “totally unimportant. Seriously, the waterfront as it stands now is a dead zone; there’s nothing there. Some restaurants, a few shops. How’s it going to get better if you build a vast emptiness next to it, all the way to the warehousey buildings to the east?
You also left out the ferry dock, which is almost entirely vehicle traffic. What’s your surface option going to do with those cars once the through traffic is dropped to their level? With a tunnel, at least they’ll be able to get into the ferry dock.
Cascadian briefly touched on, and dismissed, the only option that makes any civic sense at all, which is adding another block down the middle. I’m not convinced there isn’t room; it doesn’t have to be a BIG block, and I strongly disagree about sidewalks (narrow is BETTER for civic interaction than wide).
I think you could lay in a tight block — based not on the Old West street platting of the rest of Seattle but the blocks of narrow streets like, say, the lower Beacon Hill or North End shopping areas of Boston, or the Village in New York — make them SHORT BLOCKS to increase pedestrian options, and make them mostly BRICK so they tie into Pioneer Square (not imitatively but thematically). If you’ve got a tunnel beneath, you don’t have to make the inevitable boulevard a mile wide; make it a street like Western, which is the only properly-sized street in downtown Seattle. Two-way, street parking on both sides.
You might have to make the storefronts a little shallower than you want, but not block-long. Only restaurants should be allowed to get away with wide storefronts. And every restaurant should be required to have sidewalk seating, even if that means opening out the sidewalks a little bit.
The biggest thing is, forget about “open space”. Open space is a city killer. You’ve got a giant open space just to the west — the water. Interesting city neighborhoods have buildings and people packed in. It’s a synergistic effect — packing the buildings in 10% tighter increases the life of the block by more than 10%. Shaving five feet off the street width can be the difference between windswept nothing and a real attraction.
I think this is possible. None of the people who have their hands on the controls seem to agree with any of my ideas — but my ideas match up with successful vibrant urban neighborhoods all over the world. Theirs don’t; they look like shopping malls to me. Seriously: if they just cut’n’pasted the Village, or La Rambla in Barcelona, or Seven Dials in London, onto the blank map there, they’d maybe have a chance at creating life. But no; and the best we can hope for with today’s planners is U Village (which is a lot better than most of the drawings I’ve seen for the waterfront).
As someone who has done studies on behalf of Arup, you don’t get anything for $35,000. If you want a serious feasibility study, you have to pay at least $100,000.
@Get rid of nickels:
Which Mayor Gridlock? Royer, Rice, Schell…..
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2009-03-25/…
Looking at the numbers one can only come to the conclusion that the we citizens have been royally screwed for a project that will cost more, do less and not be completed til most of us reading this are past middle age, mark these words. Unless you never leave downtown I don’t see how this plan could ever hope to improve traffic congestion…. oh wait, the guys planning this don’t care if the problem ever gets solved, they just see dollar signs. Ol’ Boondoggle Nickels and his cronies at the Discovery Institute sure are having a good laugh now.
So, basically, we Seattle taxpayers voted AGAINST a tunnel and the billionaires are forcing us to pay for one – for THEIR benefit.
Which is, quite frankly, wrong.
Period.
All the rest is merely discussion trying to obscure that basic fact.