Stuck in Seattle
April 8, 2015 6:07 AM Subscribe
The Aggravating Adventures of a Gigantic Tunnel Drill. After Bertha got stuck, she couldn’t back up because she builds the concrete walls of the tunnel as she drills forward. That means the hole she leaves behind is narrower than she is. The contractor has devised a method—itself unprecedented—to repair Bertha by craning her in sections to the surface. Previously.
The graph has no scale, but I suspect it is based on percentage over original budget. The light rail projects may go over by a similar percentage, but the overage in actual dollars would be a lot less.
The cited research paper appears to buried behind paywalls, so I can't see more than abstracts and overviews.
posted by Badgermann at 6:30 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
The cited research paper appears to buried behind paywalls, so I can't see more than abstracts and overviews.
posted by Badgermann at 6:30 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
...I was surprised by the final infographic, about big project overruns. Boston's Bid Ig was only two places ahead of Minneapolis's light rail line. I would be very interested to hear the actual dollar amounts, and how an elaborate tunnel under a harbor and a downtown wasn't so much more than laying track on the surface.
A quick Google search shows the Big Dig costing $24.3 billion, while the Hiawatha light rail cost $715 million. That is, you could build Minneapolis' light rail system 30 times over with the money spent on Boston's Big Dig. (Target Field, by the way, cost $545 million, and the new football stadium is expected to cost about $1.06 billion.)
The infographic is misleading that way: the bars show the cost overrun in percentage of the original budget, so it looks like the rail project was expensive when it's actually a fraction the cost of other projects, even with its overrun.
posted by touchstone033 at 6:32 AM on April 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
A quick Google search shows the Big Dig costing $24.3 billion, while the Hiawatha light rail cost $715 million. That is, you could build Minneapolis' light rail system 30 times over with the money spent on Boston's Big Dig. (Target Field, by the way, cost $545 million, and the new football stadium is expected to cost about $1.06 billion.)
The infographic is misleading that way: the bars show the cost overrun in percentage of the original budget, so it looks like the rail project was expensive when it's actually a fraction the cost of other projects, even with its overrun.
posted by touchstone033 at 6:32 AM on April 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
The chart is shitty for not showing its scale, but surely the natural measure of "cost overrun" is a percentage of the estimate. Any absolute dollar scale would be useless because of time, beyond being useless because different projects are different sizes.
posted by pompomtom at 6:42 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by pompomtom at 6:42 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Our less ambitious but highly practical light rail dug is apparently doing fine and ahead of schedule, so that's good at least.
posted by Artw at 6:45 AM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 6:45 AM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
If I recall correctly, a really elegant solution to this was proposed in Virginia Lee Burton's seminal 1939 work on increasing the productive lifespan of female construction equipment, a monograph entitled Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 6:47 AM on April 8, 2015 [33 favorites]
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 6:47 AM on April 8, 2015 [33 favorites]
The story's web design is cute,
Indeed. I was 3/4 through the article before I noticed that there was a TBM advancing across the top of the screen, showing my reading progress.
posted by hwyengr at 7:01 AM on April 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Indeed. I was 3/4 through the article before I noticed that there was a TBM advancing across the top of the screen, showing my reading progress.
posted by hwyengr at 7:01 AM on April 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Almost all "megaprojects" overrun because they never would have started if there was an honest examination of the costs. Instead, you build a pure happy-path cost structure, shave off contingency, and then try to squeeze that.
Since this demands 100% perfection, this means it will of course fail in the real world. My rule of thumb is for every $1B of a project, expect at least a 10% cost overrun.
The fact that the Big Dig *only* overran by 220% is, well, a miracle. But if you had gone in saying that it would cost $22.4B, it never, ever would have been made.
Sometimes, it all works. The National Air & Space Museum opened early and millions under budget, and added exhibit halls during construction. The first branch of St. Louis' Metrolink would have been exactly on time and budget except for the Washington St. tunnel collapse, resulting in a small overrun, otherwise, it was a remarkably well run program. The O'Hare Modernization Project is 75% done, with two new runways built and a runway extended, with no overruns and everything exactly on time, and the third new runway in progress and at a stage where it's unlikely to run into any major problem. But all of these had honest cost structures and honest examinations of risks -- indeed the reuse of the old Eads Bridge freight tunnel was listed as a high risk of delay and extra cost if it was unstable, as it indeed turned out to be, but the end result was still far cheaper than digging a new tunnel and far more palatable than running the trains on the surface to the Eads Bridge and across the river.
Indeed. I was 3/4 through the article before I noticed that there was a TBM advancing across the top of the screen, showing my reading progress.
Which was silly, of course. TBMs are *tunnel* boring machines, why is it on the surface?
posted by eriko at 7:04 AM on April 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
Since this demands 100% perfection, this means it will of course fail in the real world. My rule of thumb is for every $1B of a project, expect at least a 10% cost overrun.
The fact that the Big Dig *only* overran by 220% is, well, a miracle. But if you had gone in saying that it would cost $22.4B, it never, ever would have been made.
Sometimes, it all works. The National Air & Space Museum opened early and millions under budget, and added exhibit halls during construction. The first branch of St. Louis' Metrolink would have been exactly on time and budget except for the Washington St. tunnel collapse, resulting in a small overrun, otherwise, it was a remarkably well run program. The O'Hare Modernization Project is 75% done, with two new runways built and a runway extended, with no overruns and everything exactly on time, and the third new runway in progress and at a stage where it's unlikely to run into any major problem. But all of these had honest cost structures and honest examinations of risks -- indeed the reuse of the old Eads Bridge freight tunnel was listed as a high risk of delay and extra cost if it was unstable, as it indeed turned out to be, but the end result was still far cheaper than digging a new tunnel and far more palatable than running the trains on the surface to the Eads Bridge and across the river.
Indeed. I was 3/4 through the article before I noticed that there was a TBM advancing across the top of the screen, showing my reading progress.
Which was silly, of course. TBMs are *tunnel* boring machines, why is it on the surface?
posted by eriko at 7:04 AM on April 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
Tunneling projects are exceptionally risky, because geotechnical investigations are more art than science. The make-up of the soil is determined by coring the ground at specific locations every so-often along a project's path. But the space between the cores is a best-fit interpolation based on historic geologic data, experience, and just plain guessing.
It doesn't help when construction crews leave huge chunks of steel buried in the ground.
posted by hwyengr at 7:25 AM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
It doesn't help when construction crews leave huge chunks of steel buried in the ground.
posted by hwyengr at 7:25 AM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
"Kawaii tunnel boring machine" is not a phrase I ever expected to use, particularly in reference to an article in Bloomberg Business.
posted by dephlogisticated at 7:26 AM on April 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by dephlogisticated at 7:26 AM on April 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Almost all "megaprojects" overrun because they never would have started if there was an honest examination of the costs.
Hunh. Not purely mega- ones either... a couple of km down the road from me the commuter train station is being upgraded. This involves building a one-storey building with a ticket hall, a few offices and a couple of washrooms, I guess. They are currently in the twenty-ninth month of work on an eight-month project and it is nowhere close to done.
In Toronto a minor renovation of the square in front of city hall began work in 2010 with an estimated completion date of 2012. Current forecasts have it aiming for completion by 2019.
These are projects several orders of magnitude smaller than the ones mentioned upthread.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:55 AM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Hunh. Not purely mega- ones either... a couple of km down the road from me the commuter train station is being upgraded. This involves building a one-storey building with a ticket hall, a few offices and a couple of washrooms, I guess. They are currently in the twenty-ninth month of work on an eight-month project and it is nowhere close to done.
In Toronto a minor renovation of the square in front of city hall began work in 2010 with an estimated completion date of 2012. Current forecasts have it aiming for completion by 2019.
These are projects several orders of magnitude smaller than the ones mentioned upthread.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:55 AM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yay, cars.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:02 AM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 8:02 AM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
It doesn't help when construction crews leave huge chunks of steel buried in the ground.
Or when your machine is tunneling through hundred-year-old fill instead of the firm glacial till it was spec'ed for.
posted by KathrynT at 8:15 AM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Or when your machine is tunneling through hundred-year-old fill instead of the firm glacial till it was spec'ed for.
posted by KathrynT at 8:15 AM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
I would not be suprised by anything they found down there. ANYTHING.
posted by Artw at 8:23 AM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 8:23 AM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
One thing you can say about this project at this point: it's not boring!
posted by chavenet at 8:43 AM on April 8, 2015 [24 favorites]
posted by chavenet at 8:43 AM on April 8, 2015 [24 favorites]
Has anyone done an actual investigation of how this project even got funded. It never had popular support in Seattle from what I remember. The city even elected a mayor whose primary platform was "this tunnel is a dumb idea" back in 2009.
The only people it benefits are those who get better waterfront property once the Alaska Way viaduct goes down. There must be some sort corruption going on here... I mean, seriously...
posted by Zalzidrax at 8:53 AM on April 8, 2015
The only people it benefits are those who get better waterfront property once the Alaska Way viaduct goes down. There must be some sort corruption going on here... I mean, seriously...
posted by Zalzidrax at 8:53 AM on April 8, 2015
Every time I read a Bertha story, I have to wonder: one big drill? Why not four smaller drills, say? That way if one breaks, it can be easily removed. Or if it runs into an impasse, it can back up easily. Am I missing something?
posted by erinfern at 8:58 AM on April 8, 2015
posted by erinfern at 8:58 AM on April 8, 2015
The viaduct is coming down no matter what - the only questions are if it will be through human agency or gigantic catastrophe, and if we need to replace it.
posted by Artw at 9:03 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 9:03 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Why not four smaller drills, say?
Draw a big circle. Now draw four smaller circles inside it. How do you get the excess material (not covered by the smaller drills out? How you you install the concrete rings that Bertha is setting in place?
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:04 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Draw a big circle. Now draw four smaller circles inside it. How do you get the excess material (not covered by the smaller drills out? How you you install the concrete rings that Bertha is setting in place?
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:04 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I would not be suprised by anything they found down there. ANYTHING.
This preliminary study has given us a fairly good idea of the worst-case scenario.
posted by gurple at 9:10 AM on April 8, 2015
This preliminary study has given us a fairly good idea of the worst-case scenario.
posted by gurple at 9:10 AM on April 8, 2015
The Sound Transit project to extend the light rail, as artw noted, is way ahead of schedule, and they're using two machines (one for each tunnel), instead of a mega-huge one, largest ever, and finding out that it's got more problems than they anticipated (I don't know, if I was building a huge machine, I'd probably kick the backup and repair options up a notch, because more things to go horribly wrong as we saw here).
As it stands, we're looking at a problem, if the big one fails, for two reasons:
1. the legislature decided that Seattle pays all cost overruns on this
2. opposition to any other projects will point at it as an example of how projects like this fail, instead of the success of the Link Light Rail extension to the university (which is running about $100 million under budget and opening early).
Add in the fact that the next stage of the light rail expansion - from the University of Washington station to Northgate - is nicely underway, the two tunnels from Northgate's exit to the Roosevelt station finished and nearly so, respectively, and they're setting up for the next dig - and frankly, Sound Transit is kicking all kinds of ass getting things done. But those who wish to drown government in the tub will see Bertha as the tub to use...
posted by mephron at 9:16 AM on April 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
As it stands, we're looking at a problem, if the big one fails, for two reasons:
1. the legislature decided that Seattle pays all cost overruns on this
2. opposition to any other projects will point at it as an example of how projects like this fail, instead of the success of the Link Light Rail extension to the university (which is running about $100 million under budget and opening early).
Add in the fact that the next stage of the light rail expansion - from the University of Washington station to Northgate - is nicely underway, the two tunnels from Northgate's exit to the Roosevelt station finished and nearly so, respectively, and they're setting up for the next dig - and frankly, Sound Transit is kicking all kinds of ass getting things done. But those who wish to drown government in the tub will see Bertha as the tub to use...
posted by mephron at 9:16 AM on April 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
Cascadia, funded with $9 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is part of a local conservative group known for promoting “intelligent design.” It joined with global engineering company Arup to develop the tunnel idea.
Seattlite here.
TIL that our boondoggle tunnel was conceived by the anti-evolution Discovery Institute.
What a perfect crying / laughing moment.
posted by Sauce Trough at 9:25 AM on April 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
Seattlite here.
TIL that our boondoggle tunnel was conceived by the anti-evolution Discovery Institute.
What a perfect crying / laughing moment.
posted by Sauce Trough at 9:25 AM on April 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
Draw a big circle. Now draw four smaller circles inside it. How do you get the excess material (not covered by the smaller drills out? How you you install the concrete rings that Bertha is setting in place?
I'm not saying I have a working solution, just commenting that the current attack on the problem is so clearly flawed and broken that I'm surprised they went with it. Something that breaks when it encounters inevitable resistance AND cannot be easily rescued is...just insane, from a design perspective.
posted by erinfern at 9:32 AM on April 8, 2015
I'm not saying I have a working solution, just commenting that the current attack on the problem is so clearly flawed and broken that I'm surprised they went with it. Something that breaks when it encounters inevitable resistance AND cannot be easily rescued is...just insane, from a design perspective.
posted by erinfern at 9:32 AM on April 8, 2015
Ah, Seattle. Where it takes you 30 minutes to drive one mile.
posted by Ratio at 9:35 AM on April 8, 2015
posted by Ratio at 9:35 AM on April 8, 2015
Elton McDonald coulda done it for a few cases of beer.
posted by clawsoon at 9:38 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 9:38 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
The reason Bertha is the biggest drilling machine ever is because they're building a single bore tunnel vs a twin bore tunnel. I'm sure there are specific reasons not to build a twin bore tunnel even if I don't know what they are.
Our less ambitious but highly practical light rail dug is apparently doing fine and ahead of schedule, so that's good at least.
At least the northern extension. The eastern one seems to be slipping by a year for every year that passes :(. Of course, there's no U-District or Cap Hill equivalent of Kemper Freeman Jr., so maybe that's why.
posted by Slothrup at 9:48 AM on April 8, 2015
Our less ambitious but highly practical light rail dug is apparently doing fine and ahead of schedule, so that's good at least.
At least the northern extension. The eastern one seems to be slipping by a year for every year that passes :(. Of course, there's no U-District or Cap Hill equivalent of Kemper Freeman Jr., so maybe that's why.
posted by Slothrup at 9:48 AM on April 8, 2015
The article says doing two bores was expected to be more expensive than just one, although it doesn't go in to detail. Of course I thought when you did two bores you just got one machine and turned it around and sent it back. Maybe they were comparing it to running two in parallel, which of course would be faster.
posted by ckape at 10:17 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by ckape at 10:17 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
The thing I'm puzzled by is that if you're doing a circular bore, making it twice as wide means four times the area, three times as wide means nine times the area, etc. Right? And it's hard to imagine one bore being cheaper than two given that equation.
I mean, obviously the engineers working on the project realized that, and they must have known something I don't that balanced it out. It's just startling to me that that's the conclusion they came to.
posted by nebulawindphone at 10:34 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I mean, obviously the engineers working on the project realized that, and they must have known something I don't that balanced it out. It's just startling to me that that's the conclusion they came to.
posted by nebulawindphone at 10:34 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, it's going to be a double-decker tunnel, so they're not doubling the width.
posted by ckape at 10:51 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by ckape at 10:51 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
The thing I'm puzzled by is that if you're doing a circular bore, making it twice as wide means four times the area, three times as wide means nine times the area, etc. Right? And it's hard to imagine one bore being cheaper than two given that equation.
I mean, obviously the engineers working on the project realized that, and they must have known something I don't that balanced it out. It's just startling to me that that's the conclusion they came to.
So this crossection might help. The thing is that the tunnel doesn't just need to enclose an arbitrary amount of area; it needs to enclose a box that holds the roadway. Let's think about two tunnels, each holding a single direction. Two standard 11' lanes, plus an 8' shoulder for breakdowns and a 2' walkway on the other side is a 32 foot wide roadway. The vertical clearance might be the interstate standard of 16', so we need a circle that holds a 32' by 16' rectangle. (I'm neglecting the structure around the roads, as well as air / pipe ducts which can go in left over space, and an emergency access pathway which can go to the side, since it doesn't need as much vertical clearance.) A circle that holds a 32' by 16' rectangle has a diameter of 36 feet (the same as the diagonal of the box), and a circumference (useful since that's the amount of concrete you need in the tunnel lining) of 112 feet.
Now let's stack the roads; the resulting road box is 32' wide and 32' high (a little more, since there needs to be a structure holding the road up, but let's keep this simple). The diameter is 45 feet, and the circumference 142 feet; it's 26% bigger than the single direction tunnel, but you only need one.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 11:10 AM on April 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
I mean, obviously the engineers working on the project realized that, and they must have known something I don't that balanced it out. It's just startling to me that that's the conclusion they came to.
So this crossection might help. The thing is that the tunnel doesn't just need to enclose an arbitrary amount of area; it needs to enclose a box that holds the roadway. Let's think about two tunnels, each holding a single direction. Two standard 11' lanes, plus an 8' shoulder for breakdowns and a 2' walkway on the other side is a 32 foot wide roadway. The vertical clearance might be the interstate standard of 16', so we need a circle that holds a 32' by 16' rectangle. (I'm neglecting the structure around the roads, as well as air / pipe ducts which can go in left over space, and an emergency access pathway which can go to the side, since it doesn't need as much vertical clearance.) A circle that holds a 32' by 16' rectangle has a diameter of 36 feet (the same as the diagonal of the box), and a circumference (useful since that's the amount of concrete you need in the tunnel lining) of 112 feet.
Now let's stack the roads; the resulting road box is 32' wide and 32' high (a little more, since there needs to be a structure holding the road up, but let's keep this simple). The diameter is 45 feet, and the circumference 142 feet; it's 26% bigger than the single direction tunnel, but you only need one.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 11:10 AM on April 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
Almost all "megaprojects" overrun because they never would have started if there was an honest examination of the costs. Instead, you build a pure happy-path cost structure, shave off contingency, and then try to squeeze that.
I read a really interesting piece in graduate school that made exactly this argument about huge infrastructure projects and the optimistic assumptions that are required to get them started.
posted by Dip Flash at 11:23 AM on April 8, 2015
I read a really interesting piece in graduate school that made exactly this argument about huge infrastructure projects and the optimistic assumptions that are required to get them started.
posted by Dip Flash at 11:23 AM on April 8, 2015
I'm not saying I have a working solution, just commenting that the current attack on the problem is so clearly flawed and broken that I'm surprised they went with it.
Some of the brightest geotechnical engineers the world were involved with the design of this project, so it's not like some goon drew a big circle and said, "You know, for cars!"
The article mentioned that a twin-bore tunnel was too expensive. So, they came up with a single-bore tunnel which was estimated to be cheaper. Risk analysis would have been performed, and someone then determined that the risk of the single-bore tunnel costing more than the twin-bore was acceptable, and away they went.
posted by hwyengr at 11:45 AM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Some of the brightest geotechnical engineers the world were involved with the design of this project, so it's not like some goon drew a big circle and said, "You know, for cars!"
The article mentioned that a twin-bore tunnel was too expensive. So, they came up with a single-bore tunnel which was estimated to be cheaper. Risk analysis would have been performed, and someone then determined that the risk of the single-bore tunnel costing more than the twin-bore was acceptable, and away they went.
posted by hwyengr at 11:45 AM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Also, single-bore tunnels have been proven in the field. The Barcelona Metro uses a single-bore that runs the trains in a double-decker fashion, similar, but smaller, to the Seattle configuration.
posted by hwyengr at 11:51 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by hwyengr at 11:51 AM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
A monorail for Seattle (something like the very successful one in Vancouver BC) was approved by the voters multiple times. It would have been in use for the past seven years, had it been built (instead of delayed until enemies could find a way to FUD the voters into submission).
Its clear that getting the viaduct down (damaged by quake in 2002) wasn't all that important after all. It's still up. This expensive and risky project was the third-place choice. The ghost of the could-have-been monorail is chuckling.
posted by Twang at 12:33 PM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Its clear that getting the viaduct down (damaged by quake in 2002) wasn't all that important after all. It's still up. This expensive and risky project was the third-place choice. The ghost of the could-have-been monorail is chuckling.
posted by Twang at 12:33 PM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
The financies for the monorail made those for Bertha look sane and reasonable, and we got Light Rail anyway which will do most of what we want from the monorail with the advantage of being real.
posted by Artw at 12:37 PM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 12:37 PM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Thanks, Homeboy Trouble, that's exactly the piece I was missing.
posted by nebulawindphone at 12:42 PM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by nebulawindphone at 12:42 PM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oh Seattle, I love your politics so much. Between the previously mentioned monorail which we clearly said we wanted several times and which was scrapped after much of the land had been purchased, the Sea-Tac runway expansion which literally involved trucking in a mountain to fill the space between two other mountains to create enough flat area to land a 747, to Bertha, inclusive public debate is no way to run a city. We need a corrupt mayor with mafia ties to get shit done around here.
Me, I'm biking to work, same as always.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 12:42 PM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Me, I'm biking to work, same as always.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 12:42 PM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
And when I sat I love seAttle politics, I actually really do.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 12:45 PM on April 8, 2015
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 12:45 PM on April 8, 2015
I really hope they fix this thing because I want to ride my bike to the waterfront park and enjoy a latte.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 12:48 PM on April 8, 2015
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 12:48 PM on April 8, 2015
And of course, the goddamn tunnel is going to be tolled, driving some percentage of the traffic on to surface streets. So let's review:
Portland, San Francisco, Milwaukee, and Seoul have proven that removing freeways and major arterials can have the paradoxical effect of reducing traffic load to the area, via reducing induced demand;
Seattle leadership had the opportunity to try something similar and declined, going for a much more expensive and technologically demanding option that retains that induced demand;
to pay for it, they'll have to toll it, driving some of that induced demand out into the Mercer Mess and downtown.
So, we are getting the worst of all possible worlds. I hope the goddamn machine breaks for good under downtown, and we can have a eulogy and a burial and just forget this stupid idea. Remove the deathtrap viaduct, reduce traffic running through downtown, and turn some of this attention to fixing motherfucking I-5.
posted by Existential Dread at 1:01 PM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Portland, San Francisco, Milwaukee, and Seoul have proven that removing freeways and major arterials can have the paradoxical effect of reducing traffic load to the area, via reducing induced demand;
Seattle leadership had the opportunity to try something similar and declined, going for a much more expensive and technologically demanding option that retains that induced demand;
to pay for it, they'll have to toll it, driving some of that induced demand out into the Mercer Mess and downtown.
So, we are getting the worst of all possible worlds. I hope the goddamn machine breaks for good under downtown, and we can have a eulogy and a burial and just forget this stupid idea. Remove the deathtrap viaduct, reduce traffic running through downtown, and turn some of this attention to fixing motherfucking I-5.
posted by Existential Dread at 1:01 PM on April 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
A monorail for Seattle (something like the very successful one in Vancouver BC) was approved by the voters multiple times.
While grade-separated transit is ideal, the Vancouver SkyTrain isn't really a traditional monorail like Seattle's antique retro-future monorail.
Ryanrs (a known transit fanatic) debated these points with me and convinced me about the major failures and issues with true monorails, which can be basically summarized as issues with track/train switching.
Making a switchable monorail track is not a trivial issue. There's a reason why most of the functioning true monorails in the world use a single linear track (Seattle) or a looped, closed track (Disneyland, etc) because the cost of making switching tracks is prohibitive.
If one were to actually build a monorail you'd be better off building elevated busways for both manually piloted buses and automated guided vehicle use. "Switching" a busway track is as simple as building an offramp style connector, with the added benefits of being able to handle existing rolling stock like traditional buses, electrified trolley buses and AGV buses all on the same track.
You could even integrate light rail on the same busways the way they already mix rail with bus (including electrified trolley buses) in the transit tunnels.
posted by loquacious at 1:11 PM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
While grade-separated transit is ideal, the Vancouver SkyTrain isn't really a traditional monorail like Seattle's antique retro-future monorail.
Ryanrs (a known transit fanatic) debated these points with me and convinced me about the major failures and issues with true monorails, which can be basically summarized as issues with track/train switching.
Making a switchable monorail track is not a trivial issue. There's a reason why most of the functioning true monorails in the world use a single linear track (Seattle) or a looped, closed track (Disneyland, etc) because the cost of making switching tracks is prohibitive.
If one were to actually build a monorail you'd be better off building elevated busways for both manually piloted buses and automated guided vehicle use. "Switching" a busway track is as simple as building an offramp style connector, with the added benefits of being able to handle existing rolling stock like traditional buses, electrified trolley buses and AGV buses all on the same track.
You could even integrate light rail on the same busways the way they already mix rail with bus (including electrified trolley buses) in the transit tunnels.
posted by loquacious at 1:11 PM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Any time the viaduct comes up, I feel obligated to share this simulation.
posted by bonje at 1:29 PM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by bonje at 1:29 PM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
The viaduct is coming down no matter what - the only questions are if it will be through human agency or gigantic catastrophe, and if we need to replace it.
Probably not.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:35 PM on April 8, 2015
Probably not.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:35 PM on April 8, 2015
And of course, the goddamn tunnel is going to be tolled, driving some percentage of the traffic on to surface streets.
Don't forget, the tunnel has no exits downtown, unlike the viaduct it's 'replacing.'
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:09 PM on April 8, 2015
Don't forget, the tunnel has no exits downtown, unlike the viaduct it's 'replacing.'
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:09 PM on April 8, 2015
Yeah, my guess is they'll turn off prior to entering the tunnel, strangling things around Denny and the stadiums.
posted by Existential Dread at 4:49 PM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Existential Dread at 4:49 PM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Any time the viaduct comes up, I feel obligated to share this simulation
I wonder what the leadership behind this project thinks will happen inside the tunnel, when an earthquake hits.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:12 PM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I wonder what the leadership behind this project thinks will happen inside the tunnel, when an earthquake hits.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:12 PM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
The thing I keep thinking - and I'm really un-knowledgable on this sort of thing - is that the existing viaduct is dangerous because of the earthquake zone, yet this tunnel will also be in an earthquake zone. I keep imagining an earthquake collapsing the tunnel entrances, trapping everyone underground?
posted by dnash at 5:40 PM on April 8, 2015
posted by dnash at 5:40 PM on April 8, 2015
The one thing I will say in favor of the tunnel that makes it different than other viaducts that were torn down is that Seattle does need more north-south lanes of freeway cutting across town. I5 goes down to 2 lanes that go all the way through the city (not counting express lanes) and the way the land narrows around downtown, there's just nowhere else to build. I used to commute from Wallingford to Burien and taking I5 would have added 30 minutes to my commute. Granted, I was able to change jobs to eliminate my commute, but I don't know that so many people can do this and, as much as I hate car culture, I don't think it is all that unreasonable for a major American city to need more than 2 lanes of highway passing through it.
And we all agree that an open waterfront would really improve the quality of life for downtown residents and businesses.
I'm not really strongly for or against but now that a decision is made and work started, I want it to work. And I say this as a person who is gonna get stuck footing a large part of the bill for this.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 5:41 PM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
And we all agree that an open waterfront would really improve the quality of life for downtown residents and businesses.
I'm not really strongly for or against but now that a decision is made and work started, I want it to work. And I say this as a person who is gonna get stuck footing a large part of the bill for this.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 5:41 PM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
There's probably no safer place to be in an earthquake than a modern concrete lined tunnel, especially if it is designed with seismisiticy in mind. Circles are incredibly strong. The only real danger would be if it crossed an actual fault line, because the ground can permanently shift several inches on either side, which would break the tunnel liner.
The LA subway tunnel through the Cahuenga Pass gets around this by having built an underground vault where it crosses the Hollywood Fault. So the tunnels break, you enter this huge underground room, then you're in the tunnels again. Its pitch black so you can't see anything from the train, but you'll hear a change in the pitch in the wind noise for a few seconds.
posted by hwyengr at 7:47 PM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
The LA subway tunnel through the Cahuenga Pass gets around this by having built an underground vault where it crosses the Hollywood Fault. So the tunnels break, you enter this huge underground room, then you're in the tunnels again. Its pitch black so you can't see anything from the train, but you'll hear a change in the pitch in the wind noise for a few seconds.
posted by hwyengr at 7:47 PM on April 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
The thing I keep thinking - and I'm really un-knowledgable on this sort of thing - is that the existing viaduct is dangerous because of the earthquake zone, yet this tunnel will also be in an earthquake zone. I keep imagining an earthquake collapsing the tunnel entrances, trapping everyone underground?
The existing viaduct is a 65 year old reinforced concrete structure. Firstly, the design life of reinforced concrete structures is typically 50-100 years; generally deterioration speeds up with time (that is, the structure loses more strength between years 40 and 50 than between year 0 and 10).
Secondly, seismic engineering was just barely getting started in the 1940s; the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute was established the same year as the viaduct. Understanding of how to build to withstand earthquakes was much more limited 65 years ago , and the viaduct isn't designed as well as one built today would be. (If I understand correctly, the viaduct wasn't designed in any way for earthquakes, and the first seismic code for highway structures in Washington state was in the early 1980s.)
So yeah, a deteriorating building not designed to withstand an earthquake is more dangerous than a new tunnel designed to withstand an earthquake. (Were the reverse the case - a double deck highway being built to replace a 65 year old tunnel - I'm sure the new viaduct would be much safer than the old tunnel.) Not that this means that the tunnel is necessary, or that it was worth the projected expense, or that it is worth the actual expense, but the viaduct does have to come down sooner or later.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 9:45 PM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
The existing viaduct is a 65 year old reinforced concrete structure. Firstly, the design life of reinforced concrete structures is typically 50-100 years; generally deterioration speeds up with time (that is, the structure loses more strength between years 40 and 50 than between year 0 and 10).
Secondly, seismic engineering was just barely getting started in the 1940s; the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute was established the same year as the viaduct. Understanding of how to build to withstand earthquakes was much more limited 65 years ago , and the viaduct isn't designed as well as one built today would be. (If I understand correctly, the viaduct wasn't designed in any way for earthquakes, and the first seismic code for highway structures in Washington state was in the early 1980s.)
So yeah, a deteriorating building not designed to withstand an earthquake is more dangerous than a new tunnel designed to withstand an earthquake. (Were the reverse the case - a double deck highway being built to replace a 65 year old tunnel - I'm sure the new viaduct would be much safer than the old tunnel.) Not that this means that the tunnel is necessary, or that it was worth the projected expense, or that it is worth the actual expense, but the viaduct does have to come down sooner or later.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 9:45 PM on April 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
My favorite fun fact:
The TBM is named for Bertha Knight Landes, the first female mayor of a major American city. She served one two year term.
Bertha was supposed to be done in less time than Knight Landes was mayor. On July 30, it'll have been underground for as long as she was mayor. If it starts drilling again this fall, it will have almost been idle as long as she was mayor.
posted by dw at 10:53 PM on April 8, 2015
The TBM is named for Bertha Knight Landes, the first female mayor of a major American city. She served one two year term.
Bertha was supposed to be done in less time than Knight Landes was mayor. On July 30, it'll have been underground for as long as she was mayor. If it starts drilling again this fall, it will have almost been idle as long as she was mayor.
posted by dw at 10:53 PM on April 8, 2015
The only real danger would be if it crossed an actual fault line
Like the one running across the city, just south of downtown, you mean?
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:12 PM on April 8, 2015
Like the one running across the city, just south of downtown, you mean?
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:12 PM on April 8, 2015
Seattle leadership had the opportunity to try something similar and declined, going for a much more expensive and technologically demanding option that retains that induced demand;
to pay for it, they'll have to toll it, driving some of that induced demand out into the Mercer Mess and downtown.
This tunnel was literally sold on an idiocracy style put water on the plants, like from the toilet? premise of "but where will those cars from the viaduct go, they have to go somewhere, they'll go on the road, and then there'll be a traffic jam!"
Induced demand was too complicated to explain, and no one believed it. I remember the over-and-over "the cars have to go somewhere!" cries.
I have a much more sinister conspiracy theory though, because this shit is all just so ridiculous that why the fuck not.
Now you have to remember, there was never an "eliminate the viaduct and not build a huge replacement thoroughfare" option. There was a surface street option that replaced it with a huge, like 8 lane road + transit.
I think that a lot of this had nothing to do with traffic, or transit planning. I think it was about clearing up the waterfront visually, then keeping it low traffic so that pioneer square could be redeveloped in to a super high end neighborhood like say, the areas around gastown(yaletown, etc) in vancouver. Once the viaduct is down, and there's no pesky busy street, "historic lofts" for millions and condo towers.
In support of my thesis, the systematic shitting up of pioneer square. Trumped up excuses to close every venue, the 619 building art walk was in, and a lot of other places. It was always the bar getting jacked higher and higher for seismic retrofits when a landlord had been told X was all that was needed or some other crap like that. The entire neighborhood is encrusted with blight, and the police actively run homeless people down in to there then just let them do whatever they want. There's a shocking number of uninhabited and even quasi abandoned buildings, hamstrung from any use by goalpost-shifting code/rehab requirements until a developer comes along. And i've caught development companies that have purchased buildings quickly jackhammering historic features off to pass review(i even have photos of a few instances of this). City looks the other way every time.
To be clear here, since that was a bit rambly, i think that any non-massively-expensive use of the buildings is blocked by technicality which basically destroyed the neighborhood, and has created a climate in which only developers willing to drop huge cash can do anything with a lot of them. But 10+ years ago these buildings, in the same condition, were fine. The standards went up, the objective condition didn't really go down. And in a city where the council, and all code/planning/zoning is 100% in the pockets of developers*, i feel like this was orchestated.
It's all staging to rapidly reshape the whole neighborhood and cash in when the viaduct comes down. The cash they ponied up to get the tunnel passed, whether it gets finished or fails, was just a little quarter to pop in the slot machine compared to what they know they'll make if the viaduct is gone and no busy street pops up. A "cute" waterfront is just worth too much.
At the very beginning of the bertha thing i already thought this. I've thought this since the city started not just letting pioneer square go to shit, but consistently blocking the buildings being used for anything and corralling homeless people down there which was many years before that. But at where we are now, with how bad this has fucked up, i just feel even more vindicated.
When they build a whole foods down there, i was right.
*They allow stuff as stupid as "you can violate setbacks on building A, as long as building B you're building in a different part of town compensates for it by being set back more. Nothing is a hard and fast rule. This area has an X feet and Y floors limit? Do this and this and you can build two more floors! And that's how you end up with every project being a monstrosity, and shit like this city having more <100sqft "apodment" apartments than anywhere else.
posted by emptythought at 3:06 AM on April 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
to pay for it, they'll have to toll it, driving some of that induced demand out into the Mercer Mess and downtown.
This tunnel was literally sold on an idiocracy style put water on the plants, like from the toilet? premise of "but where will those cars from the viaduct go, they have to go somewhere, they'll go on the road, and then there'll be a traffic jam!"
Induced demand was too complicated to explain, and no one believed it. I remember the over-and-over "the cars have to go somewhere!" cries.
I have a much more sinister conspiracy theory though, because this shit is all just so ridiculous that why the fuck not.
Now you have to remember, there was never an "eliminate the viaduct and not build a huge replacement thoroughfare" option. There was a surface street option that replaced it with a huge, like 8 lane road + transit.
I think that a lot of this had nothing to do with traffic, or transit planning. I think it was about clearing up the waterfront visually, then keeping it low traffic so that pioneer square could be redeveloped in to a super high end neighborhood like say, the areas around gastown(yaletown, etc) in vancouver. Once the viaduct is down, and there's no pesky busy street, "historic lofts" for millions and condo towers.
In support of my thesis, the systematic shitting up of pioneer square. Trumped up excuses to close every venue, the 619 building art walk was in, and a lot of other places. It was always the bar getting jacked higher and higher for seismic retrofits when a landlord had been told X was all that was needed or some other crap like that. The entire neighborhood is encrusted with blight, and the police actively run homeless people down in to there then just let them do whatever they want. There's a shocking number of uninhabited and even quasi abandoned buildings, hamstrung from any use by goalpost-shifting code/rehab requirements until a developer comes along. And i've caught development companies that have purchased buildings quickly jackhammering historic features off to pass review(i even have photos of a few instances of this). City looks the other way every time.
To be clear here, since that was a bit rambly, i think that any non-massively-expensive use of the buildings is blocked by technicality which basically destroyed the neighborhood, and has created a climate in which only developers willing to drop huge cash can do anything with a lot of them. But 10+ years ago these buildings, in the same condition, were fine. The standards went up, the objective condition didn't really go down. And in a city where the council, and all code/planning/zoning is 100% in the pockets of developers*, i feel like this was orchestated.
It's all staging to rapidly reshape the whole neighborhood and cash in when the viaduct comes down. The cash they ponied up to get the tunnel passed, whether it gets finished or fails, was just a little quarter to pop in the slot machine compared to what they know they'll make if the viaduct is gone and no busy street pops up. A "cute" waterfront is just worth too much.
At the very beginning of the bertha thing i already thought this. I've thought this since the city started not just letting pioneer square go to shit, but consistently blocking the buildings being used for anything and corralling homeless people down there which was many years before that. But at where we are now, with how bad this has fucked up, i just feel even more vindicated.
When they build a whole foods down there, i was right.
*They allow stuff as stupid as "you can violate setbacks on building A, as long as building B you're building in a different part of town compensates for it by being set back more. Nothing is a hard and fast rule. This area has an X feet and Y floors limit? Do this and this and you can build two more floors! And that's how you end up with every project being a monstrosity, and shit like this city having more <100sqft "apodment" apartments than anywhere else.
posted by emptythought at 3:06 AM on April 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Like the one running across the city...
Nope. Best as I can tell, the fault doesn't cross the tunnel alignment. I'm not saying near the fault, I mean literally crossing the physical fault. The tunnel is designed to withstand shaking from a nearby fault.
posted by hwyengr at 5:12 AM on April 9, 2015
Nope. Best as I can tell, the fault doesn't cross the tunnel alignment. I'm not saying near the fault, I mean literally crossing the physical fault. The tunnel is designed to withstand shaking from a nearby fault.
posted by hwyengr at 5:12 AM on April 9, 2015
*They allow stuff as stupid as "you can violate setbacks on building A, as long as building B you're building in a different part of town compensates for it by being set back more.
There's a building going up in Denny Triangle that basically ignored the POPS rules, and in return the developers are paving a bunch of streets.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 5:34 AM on April 9, 2015
There's a building going up in Denny Triangle that basically ignored the POPS rules, and in return the developers are paving a bunch of streets.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 5:34 AM on April 9, 2015
Tunneling projects are exceptionally risky, because geotechnical investigations are more art than science. The make-up of the soil is determined by coring the ground at specific locations every so-often along a project's path. But the space between the cores is a best-fit interpolation based on historic geologic data, experience, and just plain guessing.
There's a few other tools they can use to validate boring data, like seismic reflection/refraction, electrical resistance tomography and ground penetrating radar, but none of those are foolproof and an experienced geotechnical engineer has to do the analysis.
I've only done small diameter tunneling (~60-72"), but one of the biggest problems is getting the client to fork over for the geotechnical investigation. Some middle manager in the public works department thinks he's being clever by trimming your design budget, but doesn't realize that if you've got a 1 million dollar machine stuck 30 feet below ground, lawyers are going to get involved.
posted by Ham Snadwich at 9:49 AM on April 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
There's a few other tools they can use to validate boring data, like seismic reflection/refraction, electrical resistance tomography and ground penetrating radar, but none of those are foolproof and an experienced geotechnical engineer has to do the analysis.
I've only done small diameter tunneling (~60-72"), but one of the biggest problems is getting the client to fork over for the geotechnical investigation. Some middle manager in the public works department thinks he's being clever by trimming your design budget, but doesn't realize that if you've got a 1 million dollar machine stuck 30 feet below ground, lawyers are going to get involved.
posted by Ham Snadwich at 9:49 AM on April 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
There's a building going up in Denny Triangle that basically ignored the POPS rules, and in return the developers are paving a bunch of streets.
This has happened before, and the hilarrible thing is usually that they just improve the streets around their new building. It's like allowing someone to have a giant private garden on their parking strip in exchange for improving the neighbors yards and strips in the houses directly around them. It just lets them make their own project look nicer while the rest of the city rots.
We have some of the worst condition roads in any major city in the country here, and an ENORMOUS maintenance budget deficit. I'd say this was a cool gesture on their part if i hadn't seen exactly what i described occur in several neighborhoods already.
There's also a couple construction projects that dug holes in an adjacent road, improperly filled it, and refuse to repair it until their project is complete so that they aren't liable for the patch failing later. Since if they fixed it now crappily and it failed, they'd have to fix it again. This means we get car destroying moon crater sized potholes for a year+. Good times.
posted by emptythought at 5:35 PM on April 9, 2015
This has happened before, and the hilarrible thing is usually that they just improve the streets around their new building. It's like allowing someone to have a giant private garden on their parking strip in exchange for improving the neighbors yards and strips in the houses directly around them. It just lets them make their own project look nicer while the rest of the city rots.
We have some of the worst condition roads in any major city in the country here, and an ENORMOUS maintenance budget deficit. I'd say this was a cool gesture on their part if i hadn't seen exactly what i described occur in several neighborhoods already.
There's also a couple construction projects that dug holes in an adjacent road, improperly filled it, and refuse to repair it until their project is complete so that they aren't liable for the patch failing later. Since if they fixed it now crappily and it failed, they'd have to fix it again. This means we get car destroying moon crater sized potholes for a year+. Good times.
posted by emptythought at 5:35 PM on April 9, 2015
« Older Abortion: It's Not So Black and White | Our bodies, our lives Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
--
The story's web design is cute, but I was surprised by the final infographic, about big project overruns. Boston's Bid Ig was only two places ahead of Minneapolis's light rail line. I would be very interested to hear the actual dollar amounts, and how an elaborate tunnel under a harbor and a downtown wasn't so much more than laying track on the surface.
posted by wenestvedt at 6:18 AM on April 8, 2015