>A MBA in my python night class said that one approach to the viaduct problem would be to: fund a "victims of the viaduct" fund, today, with a couple million. And then pass a law that the compensation for families of the victims is limited to what's in the fund.

What exactly is the "viaduct problem"?

It's going to collapse in the next big earthquake.

//edit: and here's a simulation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hos_uIKwC-c

That's what I assumed, but I didn't (and still don't) see how setting up a limited liability fund for future victims would prevent what is shown in that simulation.

I don't know if this is what the MBA was going for, but the idea might be -

Setting up the compensation fund cements the idea that the disaster is a 'when', not 'if'. Putting a small cap on compensation signals to people - if you're a victim, you might only get this amount of money. The overall effect being that people are actually motivated to vote for measures to fix the problem. e.g., I know I'll only get compensated for a small amount, thus, I want to make sure it's less likely I'm victimized.

The more cynical/realistic problem is "dealing with the aftermath of the collapse", and the fund helps keep some of the costs from overrunning.

You could do the same after the fact.

It's a harder sell politically to cap compensation to what's in the fund after the fact.

Well there goes my favorite hotdog stand...

I'm sure he thought that was a clever solution.

Except that every time even one direction of the viaduct is closed during rush hour (due to an overturned semi or whatever) traffic grinds to a complete halt throughout the entire city.

That sounds like a decent justification for just continuing to use it until it collapses on its own due to disrepair!

Could a tunnel even survive an earthquake above 8.5?

Yes. Japan engineers tunnels -- one longer than the Chunnel -- to survive 9+ earthquakes and they do. BART was undamaged by the Loma Prieta quake that brought down the Bay Bridge and the Oakland freeway.

The length of the tunnel doesn't have much to do with earthquake survivability, beyond the obvious linear scale factor. What the tunnel is tunneling through has a lot to do with it.

Seattle's geology is somewhat different from any of the usual cited examples, as we've learned by watching everyone from journalists to politicians to engineers stand around with dumbfounded looks while the Bertha saga unfolds.

The purpose of the tunnel is to provide a better view of Puget Sound for real estate development, not to provide any sort of substitute for the viaduct. We will lose significant traffic capacity and downtown accessibility when the viaduct comes down, tunnel or no tunnel.

Engineers have told us that the tunnel will be safer in an earthquake, but then, essentially everything those engineers have told us has been straight out of the Brothers Grimm.