Extra Fizz: Viaduct Stakeholders Respond to Video

By Erica C. Barnett, Monday, October 26, 2009 at 4:05 PM
View Comments

… Although perhaps not in the way the state transportation department might have hoped. Today, in response to a scary video released by the Washington State Department of Transportation showing the destruction of the Alaskan Way Viaduct in an earthquake, five members of the 30-member Viaduct Stakeholders Group released a statement calling for the state to begin taking down the viaduct as soon as possible.

Noting that the state estimates that there is a 10 percent probability that an earthquake large enough to take down the viaduct will strike in the next ten years, the five stakeholders—People’s Waterfront Coalition founder Cary Moon, former Sierra Club chair Mike O’Brien, Cascade Bicycle Club director Chuck Ayres, Transportation Choices Coalition director Rob Johnson, and FutureWise board president Mary McCumber—called it imperative to tear the viaduct down by 2012, a deadline originally set by Gov. Christine Gregoire.

More pointedly, they noted that the deep-bore tunnel is the only viaduct replacement option that would keep the dangerous structure open past 2012. “After watching the video, we are even more convinced that taking down the viaduct by 2012 should be a non-negotiable public safety priority of all parties involved,” McCumber said in the statement.

The stakeholders also expressed dismay at not being shown the video, which was prepared by WSDOT consultant Parsons Brinkerhoff in 2007.

Full statement below the jump.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

SEATTLE, WA — Oct. 26, 2009

Yesterday the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) released a dramatization showing the potential damage to the viaduct in the case of an earthquake.  The probability of an earthquake strong enough to close the viaduct happening was stated as a 10% chance in the next ten years.

As citizens who served for a year in 2008 on the Viaduct Stakeholder Advisory Committee, we are disturbed that WSDOT did not share this video with us during the stakeholder process, even though it appears that they had paid Parsons Brinkerhoff to prepare it in 2007.

“From the beginning of the process, we had always operated under the assumption that the Governor meant what she said when she insisted that the Viaduct was coming down in 2012,” said Mike O’Brien.

“The deep bore tunnel was the only scenario that did not meet this strict deadline of removal of the viaduct by 2012,” commented Chuck Ayres.  “All of the other scenarios we studied, including the two recommendations made by WSDOT, would have allowed for removal by 2012.”

“After watching the video, we are even more convinced that taking down the viaduct by 2012 should be a non-negotiable public safety priority of all parties involved,” said Mary McCumber.

“Would you sign a ten year lease on a building if you knew there was a 10% chance of it collapsing on you in those ten years?” asked Cary Moon. “By delaying the closure of the viaduct, that is in essence what we are asking the citizens of Seattle to do.”

  • vlado
    Interesting. I guess I need to revise my estimate of stakeholders that support the surface option down from 6 to 5.

    I should point out that this letter in no way represents the vast majority of the stakeholders that support a rational, methodical solution to the Alaskan Way Viaduct issue. Tearing down the viaduct without anything to replace it would just be a disaster of another kind. We need to keep moving forward and get this project built.
  • 4 endorser's of McGinn, and McGinn's runningmate Mike O'Brien

    http://mcginnformayor.com/endorsements/

    written by a mouthpiece for SCAT

    7 days and 22 minutes more of this
  • ivan
    Oh, Jesus Christ, look at the five stakeholders who ECB cherrypicked! As if those five are in any way representative of the body as a whole!
  • Pete
    @17 but to continue the thought, you've seen the video, why wouldn't we also shut down Alaska Way and the entire waterfront until the seawall is constructed?
  • 11. That bridge collapsed in large part because Minnesota DOT made the mistake of parking a bunch of heavy trucks and piles of materials on the bridge during construction, which you generally should not do. Combined with a travel load, there was no way that or any similar bridge of any age could have held it up.
  • Pete
    @17, I always thought it would be a good experiment to close the viaduct down for an extended period to test how drivers would adjust their behavior and to see what the actual traffic impacts of its closure would be.
  • Mr. X
    @15,

    I also couldn't help but notice that not one of the 5 listed Stakeholders lives in West Seattle or personally relies on the AWV to get around or for their business.
  • Shannon
    @14 Agreed!
  • Pete
    @3, thanks, that was fast.
  • Wow, 5 of 30. That many, wow.

    wtf

    Was this a parody, too?
  • Timothy
    I think we should get the Candidates for Mayor on record as to whether or not we should close the Viaduct down sooner or later.
  • Close the viaduct immediately. Clearly the only answer. WashDOT says its unsafe. Case closed.
  • Mr. X
    Screw these people - I drive it several times a week, and will happily keep taking my chances on it for as long as WSDOT lets me.
  • Marsh
    The I-35W Mississippi Bridge in Minnesota carried 140,000 trips a day. More than the viaduct. Infrastructure fails sometimes.

    To withhold a rendering of the worst case scenario from the very citizens charged with planning a solution to the Alaskan Way mess only to release it a year later a week before a City election is questionable conduct at best. To produce the video and keep it hidden until useful for politics instead of safety is even worse. The path we are headed down is impractical, unsafe, and expensive.
  • Zelbinian
    @9:

    Neither the city nor the state own most of those brick buildings you claim would fall down (and that didn't in the video, incidentally).

    On the 520, you actually have a point. I'd like to see the analysis of that as well. The trouble is, BOTH of these things need to be replaced. That's (just one of the reasons) why spending $6B (that's the cost after interest) on ONE of these structures is absolute total insanity.
  • abc
    How about 520, forgot about that video? How about the brick buildings all over town that will crash as well?

    What was the chance 10 years ago? Yes, a big earthquake will do a lot of damage and many structures will fail, why don't we close them all now?,
  • Jim Pleasant
    We need to get the viaduct down as soon as possible, let's not waste $10 million on the earthquake alert system, the state can put that toward the sewall replacement. The Port should also chip in on the seawall, no reason Seattle should bear that Burden alone.
  • Adam Parast
    Since when has WSDOT endorsed candidates?
  • Stacy
    What about the DBT vs. those gross underground snakes in the Tremors series? Or the Viaduct vs. Mothra? Seriously, what's the point of all of this? We all know that gum, duct tape and prayer won't hold the viaduct up much longer, tear it down.
  • Brian K
    I'd like to see the deep bore tunnel + tsunami video. Does it show the south portal filling with seawater?
  • stacey
    I agree with that statement, too. Really it is unconscionable to leave the viaduct standing.
  • Erica C. Barnett
    @2: It's a pretty short statement, but I'll put it in below a jump.
  • Pete
    Full statement, please. It would be nice to see what, if anything, they had to say about the seawall, which looks like it would fail in the same 10-year, 10% scenario.
  • Actually, I'm all for this as well. Let's put the PWC's money where their mouth is and give Seattle life without the viaduct. Then we can see in black and white exactly how far the City and WSDOT have to go to make a surface/transit solution work.
blog comments powered by Disqus