I'm sure many of you were upset to read our elected leaders still can't seem to resolve the issue of how to replace the 520 bridge.
Thankfully, the issue is in Olympia's hands now so a prompt and decisive resolution should be forthcoming shortly, no?
Just like the Viaduct.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 13, 2008 07:30 AM | Email ThisAre we designing for a new earthquake? And is this new earthquake the mother of all earthquakes? And if so, what happens to the rest of Seattle and Bellevue if that earthquake occurs?
I get really confused on the practical aspects of the need to replace these structures.
And, can't you beef them up for a whole lot less?
Posted by: swatter on February 13, 2008 07:43 AMMaybe Billary can help you, she sure isn't going to win the election! LOL.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 13, 2008 07:55 AMWhat's a few fish when we can solve the bridge and traffic problems with one large paving job!
Posted by: Duffman on February 13, 2008 08:00 AMUntil you guys can figure out how to run a caucus, perhaps you should lay off telling the rest of us how to run the State. :-)
Affectionately...Timothy
Posted by: Timothy on February 13, 2008 09:02 AMAbsolutely. Will that be before or after the liberals in Olympia promptly and decisively resolve the problems with our ferries.?
I'm thinking that Dino has some great issues to run on this fall.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 13, 2008 09:03 AMObviously the democrats are all about feelings and satisfying special interest groups that provide a river of funds (can we say unions)flowing into their campaigns. They are not about achieving the simple things. Maintaining the transpotation infrastructure is hardly worth their time and effort. Congestion is not a priorty. They have more important issues to resolve. Why there is global warming and energy independence to worry about. And plans to triple the state buget in an effort to conrol the temperature of the planet.
Any sane person will question the management abilities and motivations of the politicians in control of the State's destiny. If they can't maintain the transpotation infrastructure how are they going to control the temperature of Earth.
Given the lack of leadership in Olympia, why is it that the Republican party is unable to take charge on the next election cycle? Are the voters that naive or the Republican party equally dysfunctional?
Posted by: Snuffy on February 13, 2008 09:15 AMNisqually was in 2001, it's 2008. The fact that there isn't even a *plan* in place is simply not forgivable.
I thought that if we didn't repeal the gas tax, this was all going to be fixed?
Posted by: Eirik on February 13, 2008 09:16 AMWell as someone who has trained for this. Buddy it's going to be a huge mess. ( have 10 gals of fresh water, food-MRE's, flash lights, be armed and a good first aid kit)
The bridges & buildings? who knows, but you can be darn sure it's going to be a nightmare!
Because it makes far more sense to let the queen sink herself: offense vs defense.
You don't play poker, do you?
ALSO, why aren't you asking the very same questions of your presidential candidates? Can you point to one specific solution, one specific plan of action, they've outlined in their (far too) many speeches chock full of vacuous platitudes? The dem game plan seems to be "me talk pretty, idiots vote me"... well they vote for Obamination, anyway.
Whorrabillary may want to speak with Rudy about how well that whole "firewall" plan worked! LMAO.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 13, 2008 10:01 AMAhhhhhhhh come on Duff, Obama got 8 in a row.
Sure hope you have plenty of Duffie beer. Your going to be in a 4 year or 8 drunk!
Maryland
Obama: 60%
Clinton: 36%
Virginia
Obama: 64%
Clinton: 35%
These are absolutely stunning margins of victory. 24 points in Maryland, 29 points in Virginia, and 51 points in DC are all much more than anyone had expected. Obama picked up 76 more delegates to Clinton's 39 putting him out in front in the pledged delegate count:
Obama: 1078
Clinton: 969
He's also ahead if you include super-delegates:
Obama: 1215
Clinton: 1190
Hillary the Inevitable...
Myth #1: Obama can't win among older voters.
*Obama beat Clinton 52-47 among voters over 60 in Virginia.
Myth #2: Obama can't win among women voters.
*Obama beat Clinton 58-42 among women in Virginia.
Myth #3: Obama doesn't appeal to the working class.
*Obama took 59 percent of the votes of respondents who said they earn less than $50,000 a year and 62 percent of those who said someone in their household is a member of a union.
Myth #4: Obama can't win among Hispanic voters.
*Obama beat Clinton 54-46 among Hispanics in Virginia.
Myth #5: Hillary is widely viewed as more prepared to be commander-in-chief.
*Maryland voters by 54-43 percent said Obama was better qualified than Clinton to serve as commander-in-chief.
Myth #6: Obama is strong in caucuses, not in primaries
*All three of yesterday's contests were primaries.
So there you have it. Every myth about the Obama campaign that Hillary supporters have been using to talk up her chances in this race have been destroyed overnight.
Note to SP editors, yes I know it's off topic... but duffy bait is just too tempting... I'll try to behave.. but like the Whorabillary Obamination: NO PROMISES! ;)
So, why spend all that money to save such few people who happen to be on the bridge when tens of thousands people will either be killed or their property demolished?
I just received an e-mail purportedly to be a eulogy on the passing of Common Sense.
Posted by: swatter on February 13, 2008 10:21 AMI think you know the answer. Spending money (unions and other favors) Safe????? maybe, but we both know that water or high up is a loser everytime.
If your house is old 50+ years, it may not do well in a good shake. New homes are much better.
The Nisqually shaker was about 6 (I don't know) but with an earthquake 8, the design would be for a shaker 100 times worse than the Nisqually. Each number is a factor of ten, like in pHs.
Posted by: swatter on February 13, 2008 10:51 AMThen, the boats will be moved to ferry cars from Kirkland to Montlake when the 520 bridge is damaged beyond repair. Our "leaders" will pat themselves on their back ends and note how forward thinking they were to order these new boats just in time.
Posted by: Seabecker on February 13, 2008 11:00 AMSee any strategic planning or funding of any of the following from your Elected Legislators:
Viaduct - nope,
520 - nope,
Ferries - nope,
congestion relief - nope,
more office drones hired - yup,
new State worm or spider - yup
more art projects - yup,
more environmental studies - yup,
more idle lip service - yup, yup, yup
How can we expect to get anything done until we are willing to send new people to Olympia that have the right priorities to make the hard decisions and cut out the crap.
One of these days Washington's economic engine is going to die out due to stupid decisions. And guess what we will have only our selves to blame!
In 2003, the legislature voted money from the nickel gas tax to buy four new ferries. Regardless of the reasons, it is now 2008 and construction has not even started on the new ferries.
No land to buy.
No environmental mitigation issues (compared to roads or bridges).
No easements or tunnels.
No existing traffic to work around.
Even with all of these advantages over land based transportation, the government can't even build the ferries in five years.
If they can't do something as relatively simple as a ferry, how could we trust them to efficiently replace/repair/expand the Viaduct, 520, US 2, 167, 405?
We have "representatives" in Olympia, but where are the leaders?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 13, 2008 11:41 AMJust hope you're not the poor sap on the bridge when this brilliant idea comes to fruition.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 13, 2008 11:55 AMIn 2007 we have receipts for 703.224 gallons of gas for a total of $2164.00 ... and paid $244.74 in WA taxes + another 129.39 in fed taxes...
Granted, one of our cars takes premium, but THAT'S almost 17.4 cents on the damned dollar in taxes... and almost 65% of that, over 11 cents on every dollar goes to the morons in Olympia!
.... multiply that by all those drivers you see on all the roads, at all the gas station... THEN ask yourself what the hell they are doing down there??
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 13, 2008 12:27 PMIs this a prerequisite? Can't I just ask the question and skip the preliminaries?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 13, 2008 12:42 PMThe modeling of how structures work is better, and more information is available now about soils and their behavior.
I suspect that the new design earthquake might be a larger one, even if it is the same I'll bet the engineers have found that the original design isn't as good as thought at the time.
That said, the viaduct can be strengthened in place for way less $$$ than what might be spent to replace it - which might be a good idea to push this replacement decision out a generation or two to see what might make sense in the future.
However, about 50% of the viaduct replacement design has been settled enough for construction to have been scheduled to begin (the north and south ends.)
Same for the 520 bridge - shore it up for now to meet earthquake standards as we now know them - and do nothing more.
Then, take those saved dollars and spend them on higher priority congestion relief and better maintenance of other transportation structures.
Ragnar, presuming you get 25 miles to the gallon, at $3/gallon that's 17,575 miles you drove last year - for which you paid 1.4 cents a mile in taxes.
That is an outrageous amount!
Posted by: BA on February 13, 2008 12:49 PMI can give many examples in the real world where this is occurring.
Posted by: swatter on February 13, 2008 01:11 PMThe codes define "reasonable" and for larger earthquakes what that means is the building doesn't collapse and kill the occupants.
It might mean that the building is uninhabitable afterward and must be torn down though.
For more "important" buildings, such as the 911 dispatch center for example, the building might be built to withstand a larger earthquake and continue to be functional.
I don't know specifics about transportation systems, but I'd expect that some effort is made to define the desired lifespan of what's being built, against costs and do cost/benefit analysis - particularly if there is a good likelihood that a structure might be functionally obsolete (i.e. too small) before it is structurally obsolete.
Swinging back to the politics of transportation - wouldn't it be interesting if candidate Rossi stated his solution to 520, why it is his solution, how he'd achieve it, and how it can represent his model for other transportation solutions?
I don't think a lot of those 'reasonable' standards come from a cost/benefit analysis as much as a pull a rabbit out of the hat shot.
One example of "reasonable" are the new wetland standards- what is a 'wetland' and what is a good 'buffer'. "reasonable" to a game guy is not 100 foot buffers from a manmade ditch, not 200 foot or 300 foot, but no human activity at all in an urban environment. Go figure.
I think the same goes for the kneejerk reactions to replacing the viaduct, 520 and Husky Stadium.
Posted by: swatter on February 13, 2008 02:06 PMI did once hear though, maybe 10 years ago, that the cost to purchase ALL of the States highest rated wetlands was about $500 million - I wonder if that had been done what would have been saved in analysis, delineations, studies, landowner grief, government spending on process and regulations - probably more than just buying the land and declaring problem solved.
Posted by: BA on February 13, 2008 02:12 PMWe don't need the 520 bridge at all.
It causes more traffic problems than it solves.
We should use I-90 or route traffic down through Renton -- which is safer and cheaper.
115,000 vehicles a day cross 520 but 160,000 cross I-90, yet I-90 has far more capacity! Clearly, if 115,000 can make it across 520, I-90 is way under utilized.
You presume WRONG ... and although you made a very fine attempt at spin, no matter how you try to spin it, 54.4 cents per gallon in taxes is outrageous. Furthermore, only Michigan (54.6 cpg) Illinois (59.0 cpg) New York (59.3 cpg) Connecticut (62.3 cpg), Califonia (62.8 cpg) and Hawaii 69.5 cpg) have higher gas taxes than WA. Yippeee! We're in the top ten of something! :(
http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/gasoline/upload/State-Motor-Fuel-Tax-Rates.pdf
Oh gee, now what could all those usurious states have in common?
Of course, an even BETTER question would be what do the citizens of those usurious states actually get from that pocket theft.
We know exactly what we get here in WA.. an impolite screwing without even the courtesy of a thank you.
let's see who they then pick for engineers and people to do the job; called "in the trenches training reality show"--like putting tent cities in THEIR back yards--things change when they have their dogs in the fight;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on February 13, 2008 10:34 PM
Cost Estimates
The cost of the project is a function of both design choices and timing. In August 2006, WSDOT and the Expert Review Panel reviewed the cost estimates and funding components of the 2006 SR 520 Project finance plan and agreed that the low estimated cost of the SR 520 replacement would cost approximately $2.8 billion. This estimate includes the base cost of the 6 lane alternative , with 4 general purpose lanes, 2 HOV lanes and the Montlake Interchange. The $2.8 billion figure also includes estimated mitigation costs and relatively low estimates of inflation and risk.
Using a more conservative estimate of inflation and risk, the cost of the project is likely to be $3.9 billion in year of construction dollars. The most likely cost of the 6-lane alternative with the Pacific Street Interchange Option is $4 billion. These are the two main interchange options on the west side for which cost estimates have been developed. If a new west side interchange option is agreed to as part of the current mediation process, a new cost estimate will be prepared.
When updated, the cost estimates for the project will include engineering, construction management, environmental, and right-of-way - giving the total project cost. The estimates include predictions by experts about inflation rates and construction material and labor costs.
It is also important to note that the cost estimates for the SR 520 project are shown in future year dollars, when the construction will actually occur.
Ultimately, the biggest factor in rising costs is delay. The longer it takes to start construction, the more costs will be affected by inflation and price increases. The SR 520 bridge is vulnerable in the event of a windstorm or earthquake. It is time to move forward with this critical safety and mobility project.
Bridge Design
Early on in project planning, WSDOT considered a range of options for crossing Lake Washington, including replacing the SR 520 floating bridge with a suspension bridge. WSDOT eliminated the suspension bridge from consideration for several reasons, most notably lake conditions, cost, and size.
The physical characteristics of Lake Washington create challenges for supporting a suspension bridge. These challenges include depth and a soft lake bed. The lake is very deep, at approximately 200 feet under most of the bridge. In addition, soft soils below the lake crossing make it extremely expensive and difficult to construct the large towers required to support a suspension bridge.
Another cost prohibitive factor of building a suspension bridge across Lake Washington is the length. The bridge would have to span over 7,500 feet, making it the longest suspension bridge in the world. Today, the longest existing suspension bridge is the Akashi Kaikyo Bridge in Japan, spanning 6,527 feet. The Akashi Kaikyo Bridge took 10 years to build at a cost of $3.6 billion. The likely cost of a Lake Washington suspension bridge would exceed $4.4 billion - the likely cost of the entire SR 520 corridor from Seattle to Bellevue Way.
Finally, the sheer size of the structure would have considerable impacts to views in the area. The towers supporting the main span would need to be about 900 feet tall, approximately 50% taller than the Space Needle. In addition, the two anchor piers required at the ends of the spans would be massive concrete supports.
I hope this addresses your questions. You may also visit the project Web site for the latest news and project information.
Sincerely,
Julie Meredith, P.E.
Deputy Project Director
SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Project
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520Bridge
Posted by: scott on February 14, 2008 02:34 PM
