City Hall
Mayor's Consultant Says Tunnel Risk is "High"
A consultant hired by Mayor Mike McGinn said a three-week review of the risks associated with the proposed deep-bore tunnel found that three risk elements he considered ranged from "above average" to "high." However, he refused to say whether he thought the tunnel was a good or bad project, saying only, "I can't answer that because I would be going against my fundamental philosophy. I have to come back to the fact that we're at or beyond precedent" in terms of the size of the tunnel and the soil conditions where it would be built.
Neff cited three main concerns: The tunnel, at 53 to 54 feet, will be the largest such tunnel in the world ("No one has ever built a tunnel this big," the consultant, Thom Neff, said. "That would normally give any rational person some pause"); the "geologic setting" (i.e., the ground composition and the risk for earthquakes) is risky; and the tunnel would be below the water table, creating risk from water pressure. Additionally, Neff noted, the tunnel is still in the "concept design" level, meaning less than 25 percent of fully designed. WSDOT has not specified to what level the tunnel has been designed so far.
"When you combine all of those elements the end result becomes, in my opinion, questionable," Neff said. "Because of the uncertainties, it's unlikely that it's going to play out the way they are predicting today ... What went wrong in Brightwater could happen here."
Pressed by reporters about whether the "precedent-setting" size of the proposed tunnel, at just three feet larger than the largest tunnel currently in existence (a 51-foot tunnel in Shanghai) didn't represent that big of an increase, Neff said, "Clearly, when a tunnel gets larger in diameter" it becomes more risky, Neff said. "There are some people who would say, 'Who cares.' I would not. ... I'm not comfortable being at or beyond precedent. The Gulf oil spill is another example. They drilled beyond precedent."
Asked whether it isn't inevitable—or even desirable—for tunnel technology to improve and allow larger tunnels, Neff added: "I'm glad we went to the moon. I think we learned something. But I'm not interested in going to Mars."
He said the soil conditions along the route of the proposed tunnel are the worst he's ever seen, with huge horizontal pressure in some areas, sticky clay in others, and in still others, eight-foot boulders and flowing sand.
I asked Neff to address concerns voiced by city council member Mike O'Brien that the performance bond the state is requiring, at half the total cost of the project, doesn't sufficiently protect the city and state against risks. He said the practice was unfortunate, but extremely common. "In the old days, you always had to have a 100 percent bond—there was no question. But as we have dealt with larger, more complex, and more expensive projects ... not only have contractors gone bust, but bonding companies have gone bust, so they are really unwilling to write 100 percent bonds for all of these projects," Neff said.
Neff also responded to a press release issued by a pro-tunnel group, Tunnel + Transit, alleging that Neff was a "nationally known tunnel skeptic." The group pointed to an article Neff co-wrote earlier this year titled "Bullshit as Applied to Tunneling Projects," which concluded, "the authors of this article are not above peddling their own fair share of bullshit." His response: "If you finish reading the article, what we said was, 'We leave it to the judgment of others as to whether what we say is bullshit or not.'"
As for whether he's a "tunnel skeptic," Neff replied, "[My coauthor and I] are in the tunnel business. We are not tunnel critics. We have spent our whole career designing, building, and fixing tunnels. We love tunnels."
Earlier this week, a consultant hired separately by the city council found that the city faced a 40 percent risk of cost overruns on the tunnel. Council members, who were briefed by Neff this morning, were not in their offices this afternoon to say whether Neff's report had given them any additional cause for concern about the risks of the tunnel.
Neff cited three main concerns: The tunnel, at 53 to 54 feet, will be the largest such tunnel in the world ("No one has ever built a tunnel this big," the consultant, Thom Neff, said. "That would normally give any rational person some pause"); the "geologic setting" (i.e., the ground composition and the risk for earthquakes) is risky; and the tunnel would be below the water table, creating risk from water pressure. Additionally, Neff noted, the tunnel is still in the "concept design" level, meaning less than 25 percent of fully designed. WSDOT has not specified to what level the tunnel has been designed so far.
"When you combine all of those elements the end result becomes, in my opinion, questionable," Neff said. "Because of the uncertainties, it's unlikely that it's going to play out the way they are predicting today ... What went wrong in Brightwater could happen here."
Pressed by reporters about whether the "precedent-setting" size of the proposed tunnel, at just three feet larger than the largest tunnel currently in existence (a 51-foot tunnel in Shanghai) didn't represent that big of an increase, Neff said, "Clearly, when a tunnel gets larger in diameter" it becomes more risky, Neff said. "There are some people who would say, 'Who cares.' I would not. ... I'm not comfortable being at or beyond precedent. The Gulf oil spill is another example. They drilled beyond precedent."
Asked whether it isn't inevitable—or even desirable—for tunnel technology to improve and allow larger tunnels, Neff added: "I'm glad we went to the moon. I think we learned something. But I'm not interested in going to Mars."
He said the soil conditions along the route of the proposed tunnel are the worst he's ever seen, with huge horizontal pressure in some areas, sticky clay in others, and in still others, eight-foot boulders and flowing sand.
I asked Neff to address concerns voiced by city council member Mike O'Brien that the performance bond the state is requiring, at half the total cost of the project, doesn't sufficiently protect the city and state against risks. He said the practice was unfortunate, but extremely common. "In the old days, you always had to have a 100 percent bond—there was no question. But as we have dealt with larger, more complex, and more expensive projects ... not only have contractors gone bust, but bonding companies have gone bust, so they are really unwilling to write 100 percent bonds for all of these projects," Neff said.
Neff also responded to a press release issued by a pro-tunnel group, Tunnel + Transit, alleging that Neff was a "nationally known tunnel skeptic." The group pointed to an article Neff co-wrote earlier this year titled "Bullshit as Applied to Tunneling Projects," which concluded, "the authors of this article are not above peddling their own fair share of bullshit." His response: "If you finish reading the article, what we said was, 'We leave it to the judgment of others as to whether what we say is bullshit or not.'"
As for whether he's a "tunnel skeptic," Neff replied, "[My coauthor and I] are in the tunnel business. We are not tunnel critics. We have spent our whole career designing, building, and fixing tunnels. We love tunnels."
Earlier this week, a consultant hired separately by the city council found that the city faced a 40 percent risk of cost overruns on the tunnel. Council members, who were briefed by Neff this morning, were not in their offices this afternoon to say whether Neff's report had given them any additional cause for concern about the risks of the tunnel.
