Like this:

I have to say, I am really pleased that Seattle Times has decided to write an article about tunnel safety–if you search the archives you really don’t find many references to the idea.  I am not very surprised that they have decided to highlight the concept that modern engineering and technology can overcome any risk.  That is very much a part of human nature. We definitely feel that we are the masters of our world, our brains definitely make it really hard to objectively analyze risk when there is something we want.  As we know, there has never been any time in history where this aspect of how we act and think have created problems for us.  Oh wait.

The article does a good job of summarizing their position in their summary:

“The notion of a Highway 99 tunnel raises its own set of fears among the public. What about fire, earthquake, tsunami or crashes? It turns out the Seattle project includes engineering solutions that the tunneling industry devised in response to catastrophes in other parts of the world.”

I am not going to go line by line through the entire article–even though it would be pretty easy.  I could start by asking which massive bore tunnel built in a liquefaction area has undergone a near fault earthquake for them to learn from?  I won’t go line by line, but I will point out the line given to explain why tunnels in earthquakes are fine:

“Tunnels have the advantage of being braced by surrounding soil, said Steven Kramer, a geotechnical-engineering professor at the University of Washington.”

This statement shows the disconnect between the assurances of safety and the situation with the proposed tunnel.  As I pointed out in the original post on this subject, the Federal Highway Administration points out that locations where the soil is expected to not stay in place are not good places to put tunnels–because the surrounding soil doesn’t brace the tunnel, instead it pushes, twists and pulls at the tunnel.  That is what creates the risk of catastrophic failure.  I’ve been looking, but I haven’t found any papers or even discussion on a new engineering advancement that can stop large scale liquefaction over miles of  land.  Please feel free to send me information if you find it.

I am not against the idea of a tunnel because I am afraid of change, don’t have faith in engineering, and don’t think it would be really amazing to have a pedestrian friendly waterfront.  As people our brains our wired to suppress thoughts of future risk and as such we build our own tragedies again and again. I am against this tunnel because it doesn’t make sense to replace one structure at risk of catastrophic failure in a large earthquake with another.  We need to find a better solution.

Advertisement