Thank you for replying with the stats. My original contention was the unlikelihood of the viaduct left intact after a 9.0+ earthquake. From what I saw in the provide links, they provide percentages (between 5 and 10 percent) of a viaduct collapse if in the event of an earthquake within the next number of years. Those numbers are high by any public safety standard, but the earthquake magnitude which would cause the damage is not given.
I will grant that structures are designed for lateral movement, viscosity of soil, etc. And the popular Richter Scale doesn't always translate into a "at this number things fall down" metric. But I'm still sure the percentage of a viaduct collapse at 9+ quake is far higher then 20%.
Posted by Louie Bergsagel (not verified) on Sun, 04/26/2009 - 12:08pm
You can prove that the cost will be more than the 3 or 4 billion by requiring that the bid amount be the final amount. No overruns. No company would bid on that. You can guarantee that the cost will be closer to 12 or 14 billion.
And notice no one is talking about replacing the seawall? When are they going to ask for money for that?
My suggestion is to build a tunnel in the water next to the seawall, which would become the new seawall. They could build the pieces of tunnel on land, and assemble them underwater much cheaper than a deep bore tunnel.
If a deep bore tunnel (below sea level) is going to be safe during a 9+ earthquake, than a seawall tunnel would be also. (I'm laughing as I write this.)
Actually, the best plan would be to wait until after the 9+ earthquake destroys the viaduct (state engineers say there is only a 20 percent chance of that.) If it is destroyed, haul away the rubble, and build another.
P.S. Only allow people to drive on the viaduct who accept the risks.
Could you please provide a link to where you got the 20% figure? I've been told by other Structural Engineers that only a 6.0 earthquake would take down section of the viaduct.
Posted by Guestmark (not verified) on Sun, 04/26/2009 - 9:50am
we will spend 2.4 billion extra on a tunnel that carries less traffic while we cut basic health and education and this is the best that our so called leaders can do, and people cant understand why tim keeps putting things on the ballot
Posted by Guest (not verified) on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 9:32pm
The voters have been railroaded. Considering the input from reputable civil engineers, the viaduct can be retrofitted to become a safe transportation artery for another 50 years. A tunnel is no safer than the viaduct in a 9.0 earthquake. The tunnel has half the capacity & none of the access to downtown the viaduct has. Greg Nichols wanted a legacy & he got it - at the voters expense & by ignoring all users input. I'm disgusted with Nichols, Gregoire, Sims, et al.
Watch Full Episodes
The Tunnel Vote
Comments
Posted by Louie Bergsagel (not verified) on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 2:02pm
Teachers yes.
Tunnel no.
All people that prefer holes in the ground to educated children have holes in their heads.
Posted by Louie Bergsagel (not verified) on Mon, 04/27/2009 - 9:28pm
The City of Seattle says there is only a 5% chance of viaduct failure.
"WHEREAS, the Viaduct is seismically at risk and engineers estimate it
has a 1 in 20 chance of failure in an earthquake in the next ten
years; and..."
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?d=CBOR&s1=115720.cbn....
Posted by Guest on Wed, 04/29/2009 - 7:08pm
Mr. Bergsagel,
Thank you for replying with the stats. My original contention was the unlikelihood of the viaduct left intact after a 9.0+ earthquake. From what I saw in the provide links, they provide percentages (between 5 and 10 percent) of a viaduct collapse if in the event of an earthquake within the next number of years. Those numbers are high by any public safety standard, but the earthquake magnitude which would cause the damage is not given.
I will grant that structures are designed for lateral movement, viscosity of soil, etc. And the popular Richter Scale doesn't always translate into a "at this number things fall down" metric. But I'm still sure the percentage of a viaduct collapse at 9+ quake is far higher then 20%.
Posted by Louie Bergsagel (not verified) on Mon, 04/27/2009 - 9:20pm
"The viaduct, according to the seismic vulnerability report by Parsons Brinckerhoff last November, has a one-in-10 chance of collapsing in an earthquake in the next 10 years."
http://www.westseattleherald.com/2008/07/28/news/viaduct-state-nixes-ret...
Posted by Louie Bergsagel (not verified) on Sun, 04/26/2009 - 12:08pm
You can prove that the cost will be more than the 3 or 4 billion by requiring that the bid amount be the final amount. No overruns. No company would bid on that. You can guarantee that the cost will be closer to 12 or 14 billion.
And notice no one is talking about replacing the seawall? When are they going to ask for money for that?
My suggestion is to build a tunnel in the water next to the seawall, which would become the new seawall. They could build the pieces of tunnel on land, and assemble them underwater much cheaper than a deep bore tunnel.
If a deep bore tunnel (below sea level) is going to be safe during a 9+ earthquake, than a seawall tunnel would be also. (I'm laughing as I write this.)
Actually, the best plan would be to wait until after the 9+ earthquake destroys the viaduct (state engineers say there is only a 20 percent chance of that.) If it is destroyed, haul away the rubble, and build another.
P.S. Only allow people to drive on the viaduct who accept the risks.
Posted by Guest (not verified) on Mon, 04/27/2009 - 10:31am
Forget about the viaduct. I'm pretty sure a 9+ earthquake would completely destroy most of the city.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/five-us-earthqu
Could you please provide a link to where you got the 20% figure? I've been told by other Structural Engineers that only a 6.0 earthquake would take down section of the viaduct.
As a point of comparison, a 9.0 Richter magnitude is equivalent to 32 billion tons of TNT, while a 6.0 is about 1 million tons. That's a difference of 31,999,000,000 ton.
http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/magnitude.html
Posted by Guestmark (not verified) on Sun, 04/26/2009 - 9:50am
we will spend 2.4 billion extra on a tunnel that carries less traffic while we cut basic health and education and this is the best that our so called leaders can do, and people cant understand why tim keeps putting things on the ballot
Posted by Guest (not verified) on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 9:32pm
The voters have been railroaded. Considering the input from reputable civil engineers, the viaduct can be retrofitted to become a safe transportation artery for another 50 years. A tunnel is no safer than the viaduct in a 9.0 earthquake. The tunnel has half the capacity & none of the access to downtown the viaduct has. Greg Nichols wanted a legacy & he got it - at the voters expense & by ignoring all users input. I'm disgusted with Nichols, Gregoire, Sims, et al.
Posted by ron adams (not verified) on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 7:22pm
build a tunnel YES
above ground , walk , bike or drive a planted boulevard.
Posted by ron adams (not verified) on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 7:12pm
build a tunnel yes.
above ground a world class waterfront, walk, bike and boulevard.
Post new comment