Comments on: The Tunnel, Again

By: Take Down the Viaduct Now? - Seattle Transit Blog

Take Down the Viaduct Now? - Seattle Transit Blog — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:37:02 +0000

[...] about WSDOT’s motivations here and here. My nuanced position on the merits of the tunnel is here. I wrote the above before I saw that five viaduct “stakeholders” agree with [...]

By: Bernie

Bernie — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:44:49 +0000

Paine Field is a viable option. The runway in Renton though is too short.

By: Martin H. Duke

Martin H. Duke — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:11:50 +0000

Paine Field has often been tossed around as an airport option.

Plus, when Boeing moves all its production to other states the Renton plant will have a nice airstrip. :-)

By: Bernie

Bernie — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:03:56 +0000

I don’t recall all the reasons but yes SW was trying to get out of paying fees which are and will continue to be higher at SeaTac. Noise abatement is another huge issue. Eventually (10-20 years) King County Airport will become the overflow buffer for SeaTac. Air traffic is going to continue to rise and there’s no other place for it to go. The only other possible solution I can think of is McChord becoming a cargo hub. As much as that makes a lot of business sense it would be tough in a post 9/11 world. Especially as long as a fighter intercept squadron remains based there.

By: Mike Orr

Mike Orr — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 05:36:43 +0000

I thought the Southwest move was nixed because it would have favored one airline over others, and also allowed Southwest to get out of paying the Sea-Tac expansion fees it had voted for (which other airlines would still have to pay, giving Southwest an unfair advantage).

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:55:49 +0000

For some reason I thought the buses would disappear at the beginning of U Link. Does it matter which ones? I’m riding one of them!

By: Matt the Engineer

Matt the Engineer — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:18:06 +0000

I don’t even think you need to be close to the surface. We could build an entrance out sideways toward the waterfront. This would make the waterfront more accessible, and you could still put an elevator to bring riders up to the surface.

By: Oran Viriyincy

Oran Viriyincy — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 05:52:46 +0000

Yes! But which buses, all of them? Buses may remain in the tunnel but some routes are going to be modified to reduce duplication of service. My bus, the 255 (and 256) might come off the new 520 and terminate at UW Station instead. So that leaves the 41, 101, 102, 106, 150, all the I-90 routes including 550, and the 301.

By: eddiew

eddiew — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:41:13 +0000

this blog has discussed the continuums of LRT and BRT before. Note that the ST and TriMet systems are quite different, but both are LRT. TriMet is mostly at grade, especially in downtown and it uses a standard voltage. In contrast ST Link will be largely grade separated, with the notable exception of MLK Jr. Way South, and uses a very high voltage of 1500, as ST wants to build a long regional system and have well-spaced substations. To some extent, these differences stem from governance: the three counties of TriMet together are one-half the size of King County alone; the three counties of ST are huge. The north line of Link will be Metro-lite, at the very top of the LRT continuum. Both are “real” LRT, just just the BRT systems from Vancouver’s 99B with little grade separtation all the way to the Curitiba grade-separated spine are “real” BRT.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:40:15 +0000

If he wants to oppose a tunnel, there is still time for McGinn to come out against the SR 520 tunnel under the Montlake Cut (Option K).

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:26:09 +0000

Wait, what? The first leg of U-Link and buses in the tunnel? WOOHOO! (I love transferring on the same platform…)

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:24:08 +0000

Totally wacky idea here, but all this tunneling talk got me thinking. How about a new rail tunnel for freight, and converting the ancient rail tunnel downtown into a passenger rail tunnel. It connects to King Street Station, which could be completely taken over for transit along with Union Station. Could Sounder commuter trains and a new Link run together with some kind of waiver from the Feds? Isn’t there a system in like Newark that does that? Could stations be added to the ancient tunnel without Pike Place Market disappearing into some unintended abyss? Does this idea even have a point?

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:15:32 +0000

MAX’s platforms are too narrow for my tastes.

By: alexjonlin

alexjonlin — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:59:13 +0000

I guess you’re right, it could be bored close to the surface.

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:13:27 +0000

The tunnel doesn’t need to be cut-n-cover (the DSTT wasn’t between ID and Westlake) but the stations should be shallow enough that they can be built with cut-and-cover. Even then a deep station wouldn’t necessarily require skyscraper demolition in order to build it.

By: alexjonlin

alexjonlin — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:30:24 +0000

Except that it’s way too far underground to be able to build any downtown stations. The tunnels gonna have to be cut-and-cover to avoid demolishing skyscrapers for stations.

By: alexjonlin

alexjonlin — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:25:04 +0000

They designed the DSTT to be rail-convertible, so yeah they could design this one to be.

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:55:08 +0000

And a good piece of legislation it is. These are not bus stops we are building, they are transit stations meant to last a half century or more, and they should be aesthetically pleasing.

By: The Tunnel, Again – Seattle Transit Blog | Seattle News on Twitter

The Tunnel, Again – Seattle Transit Blog | Seattle News on Twitter — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:30:38 +0000

[...] Continue reading here: The Tunnel, Again – Seattle Transit Blog [...]

By: Lydia

Lydia — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:22:35 +0000

Yes. Good fight, that one.