Comments | klicrai: The Viaduct

klicrai

The Viaduct

Oct 26, 2009 18:13

This is to all the people who have ever rolled their eyes at me when I've said I'm afraid of driving on the viaduct. Here is why we need to make replacing the seawall the primary goal and NOT replace that double decker nightmare.

Viaduct Collapse Simulation - WSDOT

Seriously, watch the video, it shows you what the scientists at the DOT believe it ( Read more... )

Comments 5

I believe them, but... omnifarious October 27 2009, 02:15:26 UTC

I would still like to see that the detailed data behind their simulation was available. I want to know what assumptions went into the simulation, and I want those assumptions to be independently verifiable.

Any good CGI artist could've made the simulation we just saw. I don't want to be convinced by pretty pictures, I want data, even if I can't understand the data myself.

I notice, for example, that none of the cars were deformed in the simulation. Were the cars a part of the simulation at all, or were they added afterwards? If they were part of the simulation, why weren't they deformed? Is that going to change anything important?

How much closer or more powerful does the earthquake have to be? Where are the links to the predictions by seismologists with the data to back them up?

At one point, disseminating all that information would've been really hard. We are now at an age where it's easy. This is our government, ostensibly a government of the people. Collectively we are not sheep to be led around by an elite of those privy ( ... )

Re: I believe them, but... klicrai October 27 2009, 06:41:41 UTC

I feel you. Verification is always nice, though in this case it's not my kink. I believe the Nisqually stats at least are available from the site if it's yours.

The seawall has been a problem for decades, and I've pretty much grown up here with a respect for earthquakes and a deep distrust of the land down by those docks. My grandma told me they drove train cars into that "fill" space back then - just threw in any ol' garbage. It's going to be a damn expensive fix.

I know the solution is a tunnel, much as I hate the idea of driving underground.

Re: I believe them, but... omnifarious October 27 2009, 06:47:23 UTC

As I recall, people voted to do neither another elevated structure, nor a tunnel. :-)

I'm all for lots of mass transit, but I suspect that there isn't enough to solve the north-south people movement problem that the viaduct currently deals with.

And you're right, they do actually have the detailed report available a few links away, so my complaint isn't valid. I'm just very suspicious of simple pretty pictures. :-)

One interesting thing is that the report presents non-liquification and liquification scenarios. I'm guessing that by 'liquification' they don't mean it in the sense people would think. They mean it in the sense that the vibration would cause the soil to behave more like a liquid under those conditions.

Re: I believe them, but... klicrai October 27 2009, 07:16:11 UTC

Yes, that's exactly what they mean. Think of it as the dirt getting sifted, like flour in a colander. A toy put on top of the flour will fall right to the bottom if you shake it. Cars, people, concrete support beams, all sink into the dirt. When they talk about the ground opening up and swallowing people, it's almost always a ground "liquification" event.

Oh - and at the same time the dirt and cars are sliding into the Sound, while power lines fall all around.

Yeah, if there's an earthquake big enough (1 in 10 chance in the next decade) - I don't want to be anywhere near the Viaduct. I also wouldn't necessarily trust any structure built on top of that old fill dirt site.

dave_over October 27 2009, 15:30:06 UTC

( ... )