Sunday Open Thread: Snowing on the Subway

I am not sure this is real, but supposedly this is snow failing inside a subway car in the Kiev Metro. I’ll never complain about my wintery commute again. Unless this video is fake, of course.

Comments

  1. LWC says

    An interesting calculation: the SR520 bridge is being replaced for ~$4 billion after ~50 years, and currently has about 65,000 crossings per day.

    $4B / (65K * 50 * 365) ~ $3.40 per crossing per vehicle in depreciation costs. This is an underestimate for sure, because vehicle volumes were much smaller in the past. And it doesn’t include any maintenance or upkeep costs. Still, it puts things in perspective.

    • aw says

      The current bridge was paid for (capital cost anyway) by the original toll. The $4B cost for the new bridge should be figured into the future with an uncertain lifespan. It will also have higher capacity and throughput, so the vehicle count could go up. Since the tolls are supposed to increase annually, they should keep up with inflation.

    • Bernie says

      You are correct that, long term, sinking bridges are a terrible value. A proper bridge lasts centuries rather than decades. But Washington has bought in hook line and sinker to the idea of “cheap” upfront construction costs. Your calculation is probably pretty close. The bridge part of the 520 project is “only” about $2B. The rest is for replacing 520 from Lk WA to I-450 plus the Seattle Landing which includes replacing the Portage Bag Bridge. But maintenance costs on the bridge have been staggering as it reaches end of life. The other calculation is time value of money. That’s the real killer since your trading off the saved construction costs 50 years ago vs the cost of a total rebuild in today’s dollars. Thing is, we don’t really save that much.

      The Rio–Antirrio Bridge was completed in 2004 for Euros ($920,000,00). The pontoon bridge for lake Washington is estimated to cost twice that.

      The Akashi Kaikyō Bridge, the longest in the world at the time and built over open ocean costs about the same as what we’re spending for our newest stinker sinker.

      • aw says

        Hopefully, they’re figuring out how to build pontoon bridges that will last longer. They’ve had some practice building replacements now.

        Building the bridge above the pontoons and water should help with one of the failure modes that they worried about, namely high waves coming up onto the bridge deck and flooding the pontoons. Building gaps between the pontoons should help too. This will allow waves to go around the pontoons instead of over them and relieve some stress on the anchor cables.

        However, the presence of leaky pontoons makes one wonder.

      • Bernie says

        Building the bridge above the pontoons and water should help

        Yeah, it’s work oh so well on the Hood Canal bridge. Raising the center of gravity is usually a bad idea for a marine vessel which is what these “bridges” are officially defined as. The reason waves coming over the 520 bridge are a problem is because it’s riding about 3′ lower in the water after all the extra concrete that has been added over the years to fix cracks and strengthen the structure. I guess they’ve pre-engineered sinkage into this design.

      • Lack Thereof says

        The 50 year lifespan is no longer WSDOT’s standard. That’s why the Viaduct “retrofit” plan was rejected so quickly a few years ago. WSDOT now requires all projects to be built for a 150 year lifespan.

      • Bernie says

        Yet they’ve already started repairing the brand new pontoons! The original 520 cost a shade over $21 million. The 2nd Tacoma Narrows, the one that replaced Galloping Gertie cost $8.5 million. Adjusted for inflation that’s half the $21M 520 cost the first time around. Interestingly the New Narrows, a second bridge rather than a do over ended up costing only $800 million. Now we’re spending $2 billion.

    • Mike Orr says

      “vehicle volumes were much smaller in the past”

      Are they? Those 1950s and 60s metal tanks were huge. Then there were the 1970s station wagons and Winnebagos. Compact cars took off in the 70s and SUVs in the 80s. So there’s a big difference in SUVs replacing compact cars, but not so much difference between SUVs and pre-compacts. And I’m not sure whether that many people literally replaced a compact car with an SUV, or whether SUV owners have always tended toward the larger cars. Of course, some families have both an SUV and a regular car, and try to shift small errands to the small car as much as possible.

      • Lack Thereof says

        Those 1950s and 60s metal tanks were huge.

        You just remember them that way because you were small. They also managed to get quite a lot of weight savings out of having virtually no crash safety standards at all. A modern SUV is much weightier than Mom’s/Grandma’s wagon – the biggest of the Country Squires ever made (1970’s era) only weighed a hair over 2 tons, the same as most “crossovers” today.

        In those days, manufacturers were primarily limited in how heavy they could build by the performance of the low-compression, slow-burn engines of the era. If they had built something with the weight of a Hummer, it would have taken an hour to do 0-60. Nowadays the 4 cylinder in a compact car is putting out the same power as a typical 1960’s V-8, and the V-6s in our midsize cars & SUVs outperforming the most powerful of the 60’s big-blocks.

        Cars now weigh more than cars then. Our compact cars are lighter than the old compacts, but the bulk of the commuter fleet is much heftier than it was in the 60’s.

      • Bernie says

        Those “tanks” weren’t as heavy as one might thing. My ’65 Mustang with a V8 has a curb weight of less than 2,800. Our 2009 Outback wagon with the 4 cyl comes in at 3357 lbs. Of course the Subaru is AWD and loaded with safety features not even imagined back in the ’60s. As far as volume it was totally backed up by the time tolling stopped in 1979. Free flowing traffic at 35mph carries more volume per hour than gridlock.

      • Bernie says

        V-6s in our midsize cars & SUVs outperforming the most powerful of the 60′s big-blocks.

        For the run of the mill Ford 390 that’s true but there were some monster big block V8s back in the 60’s.

        The street Hemi version was rated at 425 bhp (316.9 kW)(Gross) with two Carter AFB carburetors. In actual dynomometer testing, it produced 433.5 horsepower and 472 lb·ft (640 N·m) torque in purely stock form

        Some HiPo V6 engines today with a turbo charger can make that HP but don’t come close in the number of torques they produce ;-) The dinosaur hemi with a roots blower and running nitromethane can make 8,000 HP in today’s NHRA dragsters. Don’t try that with your minivan motor :P

      • Lack Thereof says

        I was mostly talking about the mainstream big blocks – the top-option Ford 390 is a perfect example. NASCAR’s late 60’s era requirement that only engines available in stock production vehicles were allowed to be used in competition resulted in a whole mess of ill-tempered, high maintenance racing engines being equipped in street vehicles in the bare minimum amounts to qualify. The “street hemi” was basically unstreetable, ran on premium gas, and cost Chrysler a fortune to produce. Ditto for the Ford 427, et al. But add them all up and you get /maybe/ 1% of all the big block engines made those particular years.

        The base 3.6L V-6 in current-model Chevrolet grocery-getters these days is rated (rather conservatively) at 300HP net. The base V-8 in the Ford Mustang is rated at 420. Open your wallet a little further at many dealership and you can get quite a few 500HP cars that are perfectly streetable and well behaved.

        Also the age of torque is over. With 6 speed automatics (to say nothing of CVTs) and 7000 RPM redlines, torque is now a virtually irrelevant number.

      • Bernie says

        No argument with respect to “talking about the mainstream big blocks” but when you say “the most powerful of the 60′s big-blocks” that’s a whole different story. As for opening your wallet those cars seemed out of this world at the time but they’re chump change compared to what people are willing to spend today. A 1967 L88 equipped Corvette was $4,750. Convert to present day dollars that’s about $24,000. A new ZR1 is $112,600. Granted a new ZR1 will literally run circles around the old iron but there’s not a $24,000 car on the lot that can hold a candle to a the old ‘vette.

  2. lazarus says

    If early tolls are a good thing for SR520, then why not do the same thing on for the DBT. It would help the funding situation, allow the state to fine tune their tolling models using real data instead of estimates, and it would allow the city of Seattle to get a headstart on dealing with diversion.

    And early tolls would probably be a good thing for the CRC to.

    • Lack Thereof says

      There’s plenty in Seattle who would support this, but I think WSDOT wants to get the interchange at Atlantic/Edgar Martinez/WA519 finished before they try anything. Any diversion data they gathered before that interchange was complete would be useless, and additional traffic diversion without that easy path to I-5/I-90 would be ugly for local traffic on the alternate routes.

  3. mic says

    Why is it so damn hard for cities to understand that transit isn’t a brand, or a planning charette, or some other academic discussion about moving society from here to Nirvana.
    Having just spent the last week in Las Vegas, the point was driven home in spades. They are a transit planners dream city with an airport close by, and some of the most intense density (albeit transient)along a few mile corridor (Las Vegas Blvd, or the ‘Strip’)
    It would seem connecting the dots would be a no brainer, but they have managed to fuck it up to point of being another dysfunctional transit oddity I see so often.
    Moving people from the airport, then to and from hotels and within downtown seems easy.
    Here’s what they have done.
    1. The ‘Duece’ is BRT along the strip with few stops, little wayside information, long headways, a separate fare system from the bus system, and not many riders – Go Figure!
    2. The monorail runs along the backside of half the casinos, wanders around, doesn’t go to the airport or downtown, no wayside info and infrequent service, has a separate and more expensive fare system, and not many riders – Go Figure!
    3. The bus system tries to do everything else, except the prime market stuff, doesn’t run that often, wanders all over town, with it’s own set of fares, and doesn’t have that many riders – You see a pattern developing here?
    These disjointed attempts to sell projects are replicated all over America, and we seem to learn nothing in the process.

      • mic says

        My wife and I got off the airplane trying to find public transportation to our hotel.
        The only sign in the airport was an arrow saying ‘Ground Transport’, which led us to the taxi stand (rumor had it the cost was about $40 each way, or a really crappy van that wandered all over Vegas, costing us $15. We chose the van, taking 30+ minutes to our mid-strip hotel (a stones throw from the airport)during the PM Peak. We later found out the cabs are about $15 also.
        Other ventures out to ‘find’ public transit were equally disappointing.

      • asdf says

        “rumor had it the cost was about $40 each way…”

        One of the consequences of everybody driving everywhere in their own car is that most Americans have almost zero experience using taxis. Enough so that outrageous rumors can develop to make people believe they cost way more than they actually do.

        My experience is that riding a taxi is analogous to buying produce at the supermarket. There is an advertized cost per pound and you have the choice of either weighing it yourself on the scale there, or just throwing it into your cart and trusting the scale at the checkout counter. For taxis, there is an advertized meter drop and cost per mile (which you can look up online), which you can multiply by the number of miles to find out how much the trip will cost. The taxi equivalent of the supermarket’s produce scale is Google driving directions, which will tell you exactly how many miles the trip is.

        I once had an occasion where I needed to get from the U-district to Brickyard P&R at 6:00 on a Saturday morning, too early for the first 255 bus, to carpool to a hike near Leavenworth. Google driving directions initially said the trip was 16 miles along 520 and 405, but I found a series of back roads that cut the total distance to only 12.4 miles. So, when the time came to make the actual trip, instead of letting the taxi driver use his GPS, I had a printout of the directions I wanted to use in hand and gave the driver turn-by-turn directions myself. Sure enough, when we reached the destination, the meter was exactly what I had calculated it would be. Had I not scouted out the route with the back roads, the extra 3.5 miles would have cost me at least an extra $10. So, when it comes to taxis, being prepared can be quite helpful.

      • lazarus says

        The main problem with extending the LV Monorail is its recent bankruptcy. Nobody is going to spend 100’s of millions of dollars to extend a system that won’t turn a profit and is in bankruptcy. And of course it was sold as a private effort so a government bailout is unlikely.

      • mic says

        Just for grins, I looked up the average cost of cab rides across the US and World on google. Seattle ranks among the highest in the US and World (~$20 for a 2 mile ride), with the rest of the US cities trending down as low as $10. A trip to our airport is at least that $40 number I had been given by several on the plane ride down.
        Wondering what our access service would do, if Metro just bought cab rides for all of them (that’s legal), reveals that an average trip on access is costing Metro ~$50 a ride now. Our cabs are costing us around $3.50 / mile (average trip of 6 miles), which is close to the average access trip length.
        So…, we could actually save money, buy switching over our access program to cab service script, and probably do the same on some of the outlying bus routes.
        “Poor-mans PRT”

  4. Sam says

    Best scene in a movie or TV on public transportation … Movie: Ending of Midnight Cowboy. TV: It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Dee Rides the Bus.

    • says

      The near-conclusion of Dr. Zhivago on the streetcar is classic David Lean. And from the same era, Maria signing “I’ve Got Confidence” on the bus from the abbey to the Von Trapp residence.

      Closing scene from the Graduate on a bus is pretty great. My favorite might be 7-year-old Joey Norton riding the elevated by himself to Coney Island in 1953’s “The Little Fugitive.”

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XobeB4BSYz0

  5. Greg says

    Kiel’s subway is really beautiful (second only to Moscow, in my experience) but it’s very old and a lot of the cars are original. I wouldn’t say it’s out of the question that one of them had a leaky roof, but I never encountered anything like that the week when I rode it.

  6. Gordon Werner says

    Andrew … if the subway has open stations and there is a blizzard outside (or if there are windows stuck open) … then it is perfectly possible to have snow in the subway …

    Since the video never looks up (at least above people’s heads) we cannot know

  7. CascadianBlue says

    I asked this question last week, but posted it too late for most to see it. I’ve noticed a lot of commenters think Denny Triangle and SLU should be a high priority for grade-separated rail. How do you see this fitting into our current light rail system, as well as a potential Ballard line and East Link?

    • William says

      Myself, I see the SLU line continuing to Fremont and then up Phinny before cutting over to Northgate and Lake City. If possible, it should stop at the Seattle Center and Queen Anne on the way. At Fremont, we have a transfer to the Ballard-UW line.

      If that’s too much to do, we can have the first line turn at Fremont to serve Ballard… but put a junction in place to continue later.

      • CascadianBlue says

        And how would it interact with the current line? Would it have its own tunnel, or would it connect to the existing one?

      • William says

        I’ll defer to ST and the City on that. :)

        My opinion, though… I’ve reluctantly been convinced that, as long as Link will have to wait unpredictably for stoplights on MLK, we can’t interline in the tunnel any more than is already planned. So, we could end SLU Link at Westlake Station (and force transfers), we could run it as a surface streetcar (and downgrade the reputation of Link), or we could extend it to First Hill and the Central District. Guess which one I favor!

      • says

        If we’re going to build a train from Lake City to Northgate and then continue west I think we ought to go farther west than Phinney, to complete that east-west corridor, before heading south again. Like the Seattle Subway diagram only more so — probably more like what the 40 does.

      • Bernie says

        If we’re going to build a train from Lake City to Northgate

        But we’re not. Not building an elevator to the moon either. Transporter technology… about as likely as a fleet of hydrogen powered buses. To bad we’re not building a real transit system that works. But it is more fun to watch reruns of Star Trek.

      • Mike Orr says

        The phrase “SLU line” is ambiguous. ST is studying a downtown-Ballard streetcar (presumably on Westlake) the city would fund, and a downtown-Ballard light rail (presumably in Interbay) ST would fund. If “SLU line” means anything, it would mean the streetcar, which already has SLU in its name. I can’t see a streetcar and Link being so close together that they would overlap on Westlake or Fremont-Ballard, especially if the streetcar begins construction before Link gets out of planning. So that makes it pretty likely Link will be in Interbay and not Fremont. Both studies terminate in Ballard. The Ballard-Phinney-Northgate extension is not even being planned at this point, it exists only on the Seattle Subway map, TMP, and ST long-range plan, and is unfunded. If it does happen, it will be light rail, not a streetcar, so that it can continue to Lake City and Bothell. That line will be unlikely to go on Westlake as I said above, so calling it an “SLU line” is confusing. If it does serve SLU, it would turn immediately west to Seattle Center because that can’t be missed, and then Ballard. I still wouldn’t call it an “SLU line”, both because of confusion with the existing SLU streetcar and with its extension north.

    • Mike Orr says

      It’s not that they need grade-separated rail on their own. It’s that you need grade-separated rail through them to get acceptable travel time to Ballard (meaning, comparable to the 15X). Since the line will inevitably pass through Belltown and/or SLU, it would be a shame not to stop there because they’re such major urban villages. There’s also a possibility of an Aurora line in the farther future, which would have the same issues.

      • says

        I like the Aurora line joining the Belltown subway at around 3rd & Cedar. So a Seattle Center East transition from Aurora. That Broad Street right-of-way is awfully attractive for this.

      • d.p. says

        What the hell is a “major urban village”? Côte-d’Élliott Villages? I picture rolling pastures with five Burj Khalifas cinched together like asparagus sticking out of the center. Something in a Dr. Seuss drawing.

        Calling a major part of a major city a “village” is inaccurate, with problematic overtones of isolation and difficulty of access. Lynnwood Chia City(tm) and Belltown suddenly acquire equivalency, falsely.

        City is CITY. That’s why poor transit connectivity is a liability.

        Village is nowhere.

      • Bernie says

        What the hell is a “major urban village”?

        One little wee bunch of houses in London, one little wee spot, is the centre of the globe, the heart of the globe, and the machinery that moves the world is located there. It is called the City, and it, with a patch of its borderland, is a city. But the rest of London is not a city. It is fifty villages massed solidly together over a vast stretch of territory. Each village has its own name and its own government. Its ways are village ways, and the great body of its inhabitants are just villagers, and have the simple, honest, untraveled, unworldly look of villagers. Its shops are village shops; little cramped places where you can buy an anvil or paper of pins, or anything between; but you can’t buy two anvils, nor five papers of pins, nor seven white cravats, nor two hats of the same breed, because they do not keep such gross masses in stock.

        Mark Twain

      • d.p. says

        Adorable! Quaint! Thank you, clever Mr. Clemens!

        While there is much that is “untraveled and unworldly” about Belltown and SLU, nothing about them is quaint.

      • Mike Orr says

        I initially thought the term village was strange, because isn’t a village an isolated settlement smaller than a town? But there’s a second usage, longstanding in Ireland and England, that “the village” is the neighborhood center. “I’m going to the village to pick up the post” — even though you live in a city and “the village” might be large. That’s the meaning behind Greenwich Village in New York. And “urban village” has come to be the established term for a neighborhood center with mixed housing and retail, where you can fulfill many of your needs without leaving the neighborhood. That’s what I was trying to focus on here: Belltown and SLU aspire to be like that even though they’re currently lacking in some areas. As you well know, urbanism requires these mixed-use villages and good transit in and out of them. Now that we’ve promoted Belltown as a high-density residential “village”, it would be a shame for Link to bypass it on the way to Uptown. And the powers that be will not do that because it’s patently silly and contradicts what they’ve been promoting Belltown as. However, it may have to be bypassed due to geographic necessity, if the line goes through SLU and would have to backtrack to get to Belltown.

      • d.p. says

        Greenwich village was an outpost when settled and named, just like the villages and towns that eventually congealed into London.

        That fantastic Twain quote above captures his kitschy enjoyment of the parochial quirks on display from Londoners, but it also sets such things anti-cohesion at odds with the worldly, cosmopolitan urbanism to be found in Paris, Vienna, or New York at the time.

        Villages may be cute, may be homey, may tickle the down-home American urge to know all of your neighbors’ names and business. Villages also pull down the shades and roll up the sidewalks at dusk, are inward-looking to a fault, lack the critical mass of activity to be part of something greater than themselves.

        Belltown and SLU have many faults. Refusing to be more “village-like” is not one of them.

      • Mike Orr says

        What other word expresses the concept of having housing, retail, and jobs in the same neighborhood so that you don’t have to go out of the neighborhood for those things? That’s what the word village is getting at.

      • d.p. says

        Nope. Sorry.

        “Urban village” is planner’s jargon, is an oxymoron, and is dumb. It’s a term younger than I am, and not in widespread use for good reason.

        What other word expresses the concept of having housing, retail, and jobs in the same neighborhood so that you don’t have to go out of the neighborhood for those things?

        “City.”

    • Mike Orr says

      The most likely outcome is a second DSTT on 2nd, with the line going straight north, stopping around 2nd & Bell, 1st & Republican, QA & Boston, Interbay, and Ballard. Upper Queen Anne may be sacrificed for cost-cutting.

      If the tunnel is on 5th or Convention Place station is resurrected, it could naturally serve the Denny Triangle and SLU, then turn west to Uptown and the regular route. That would bypass Belltown.

      An Aurora line may come in the farther future, but the same issues would apply.

      I don’t see any line ever connecting SLU to the Eastside directly. The most radical suggestion is a Ballard – UDistrict – Sand Point – Kirkland – Redmond line. This would fundamentally change the relationship between north Seattle and the Eastside, which is currently difficult even by car. But its benefit for Eastside – SLU trips would be less if any.

      • asdf says

        What exactly is there around Interbay that would justify the cost of having a major subway line stop there? Maybe there’s some major new development coming in the near future that would justify it, but with the current land use, it doesn’t make sense.

      • says

        I’ve heard this comment repeatedly on the Blog: 2nd Avenue is the probable second subway corridor. Seems to me FTA would find the alignment a little redundant. 5th Ave is way up the hill from the DTT, is lined with the city’s tallest towers, and connects to First Hill. Would be nice to have a station near the Library and the Madison corridor. This would make the 4th/5th City Center Connector corridor somewhat redundant. I prefer the 1st Avenue alignment anyway. Connector open house on Wednesday.

      • William says

        I agree with asdf: I don’t think we’re going to get two subway lines coming out that side of downtown any time soon. So, if we can’t tunnel under Queen Anne, I’d vastly prefer Westlake over Interbay because a Westlake alignment will get us Fremont as well as Ballard.

      • says

        OK, I’ve exceeded my limit. Nevertheless…

        Westlake through Fremont is a rough corridor for grade separation. Interesting surface line–whether Westlake or Dexter.

        An Aurora high bridge line could (conceivably) have a elevator station at Fremont.

        Interbay offers an attractive, cost effective, rapid surface alignment to Ballard. Bus connections and new development potential at Dravus. Amgen and additional Magnolia connection at Prospect.

      • asdf says

        I agree that the Interbay alignment seems the most likely to happen, but the reasons will be about reducing construction costs, not increasing ridership. If the subway could make use of unused railroad lines to actually run on the surface for a stretch, that would save a lot of money over going underground, while still maintaining grade separation.

        I’m not a fan of your proposed bus connection though. If you’re in upper Queen Anne, this shuttle adds very little marginal value over the existing buses to Lower Queen Anne, which would, presumably, still connect to the same subway line. Then, Magnolia would probably never accept the forced transfer over the existing buses that go directly to downtown. Yes, your proposal would make it somewhat easier to get from Magnolia to Ballard, but the people in Magnolia have already said during the last restructure that they don’t care about transit to Ballard – when they want to go to Ballard, they will just drive. They want to transit to go to one place and one place only and that’s downtown.

      • Mike Orr says

        A subway on Westlake would overlap with a Westlake streetcar too much. I can’t see the FTA saying 2nd is too close but 5th isn’t. The whole reason to have a second tunnel is because one tunnel is insufficient for current and future needs, and having it next to the other tunnel would facilitate transfers at multiple stations, especially University Street which already has an entrance on 2nd. I’m assuming 2nd would be technically easier, especially for a shared Westlake station. But yes, a station at 5th & Madison would solve the problem of no library station and no Madison station.

      • says

        I’m not sure what a plausible Magnolia-Queen Anne via Dravus bus route would look like… probably a bit loopy because of the hills, but fine for the purpose.

        Anyway, Magnolia should have bus service that goes downtown… during peak hours. But right now Magnolia is getting limited span of service, when they could probably have greater span and frequency without losing coverage if some of their off-peak routes terminated at RR stations instead of duplicating RR all the way downtown. We could offer Magnolia much more if we ran 3/4-full RR buses between the Magnolia Bridge and downtown than we do running 1/2-full RR buses and 1/4-full Magnolia buses… and late evenings the numbers are probably worse than that.

      • d.p. says

        Yeah, but win the OneBusAway lottery and transfer from RR to a 24/33, and you’ll save 5-9 minutes on your trip!

      • Mike Orr says

        “What exactly is there around Interbay that would justify the cost of having a major subway line stop there?”

        The line is for downtown-Ballard trips. The cost of the station is tiny compared to the line. There’s some belief that Interbay might be significantly upzoned in the future, because it’s one of the few places with underused land and not a lot of single-family NIMBYs. We can either build the station, or not, or make it a “deferred station”. I don’t care much either way. Although in general, ST should be more pro-active about deferring stations with no immediate need (130th), and undeferring them in a timely manner (Graham). So I’d like to see the city to discuss when and how much Interbay would be upzoned, and for ST to have an undeferring plan that matches it.

      • d.p. says

        ASDF isn’t saying that there shouldn’t be a stop along the line. He’s questioning the presumption of putting a line through Interbay in the first place.

        I tend to agree. The presumed new downtown tunnel is the great cost-prohibitive impediment to this scheme (which I why I doubt this line will be built to begin with). But if you somehow succeed in funding the downtown tunnel, why not do the north-south correctly (at only slightly higher cost) and tunnel all the way past the ship canal (which you have to tunnel beneath regardless), serving Queen Anne Ave along the way and solving an otherwise-permanent grade barrier.

        Building a subway and then not solving the things subways can solve (serving wasteland Interbay instead) just seems kind of dumb.

    • says

      A couple thoughts: if the DTT has capacity for it, extend east from Westlake Station to Convention Place. Subway under Boren to a portal along Fairview. It’ll take some creativity to get through the Mercer Mess. Continue through the Eastlake corridor–street running for now, LRT closer to the freeway in the future.

      As discussed by many of you (thanks especially Ben), Ballard LRT, including a probable Belltown/Uptown subway, would likely require a second subway through downtown. I like a 5th Avenue alignment. The Fairview line could conceivably use that route through downtown; Virginia is an interesting approach.

  8. Bernie says

    Old news but, Construction underway for South Kirkland Park & Ride parking garage

    Construction of a 250 stall parking garage for transit riders is underway at the South Kirkland Park and Ride. When complete in 2014, the park and ride facility will include two additional mixed-use residential buildings with ground floor commercial uses in the southwest corner of the property.

    And none too soon. That area of Kirkland is bereft of salons :=

  9. Bernie says

    Offices at Redmond Town Center for sale:

    The complex includes 582,000 square feet of office space — fully leased to Microsoft and AT&T Wireless — and two garages with more than 2,000 parking stalls,

    When you figure in the required space in addition to where a car is actually parked there’s the same or more square footage in garage as there is office space. I’m assuming this is completely separate from the parking garage for retail.

  10. John Bailo says

    Hydrogen power ‘will be mainstream in the UK by 2025’

    Hydrogen will become a mainstream fuel in the UK by 2025, according to a new report from UKH2Mobility. Sales of hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles are expect to take off from 2025, with projections of around 10,000 sales from 2020 and 100,000 sales annually from 2025.

    UKH2Mobility, a consortium of industry and government including Daimler, Toyota, Hyundai, Nissan, BOC and Morrisons, predicts that by 2030, there will be 1.6 million hydrogen-powered vehicles on British roads, with annual sales reaching 300,000 units.

    http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/green-cars/hydrogen-power-%E2%80%98will-be-mainstream-uk-2025%E2%80%99

Sign in or create an account to save your credentials and make commenting faster.



You may want to read our comment policy.