Seattle Subway!

[UrbanBen]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

Actually, I would start improving the park now. Some kind of mass transit system will eventually have to be built that way sooner or later, and having the city's landmark park and tourist attraction there will give more impetus to get it built.

I think the city's focused on raising funds to pay James Corner right now... :P But yeah, I want to see that too!

[Bond James Bond]

Originally Posted by UrbanBen

We don't need billions. A campaign to win this will only take tens of thousands - and a lot of volunteer time.

Bond James Bond - remember when you said Link would never happen? I went on to work hard on the 2008 campaign, and we won by a landslide in Seattle. You sat and complained - why not join us?

I don't think I ever said the Link would never happen. The first vote on it was in 1996 in favor of it - which was 4 years before I even started posting on skyscraper forums. How can I say something would never happen when it had already been approved?

[LCIII]

#Drama

[mhays]

Originally Posted by UrbanBen

There is *no* need to wait. Tunnel boring for the 99 tunnel will be many tens of feet below a potential subway tunnel - and that tunnel work will be early in the 99 process, more like 2014 - when we'd go to ballot anyway.

Station locations - exact station locations, especially - are best left up to the planners. A second Interbay station probably wouldn't make much sense. The Lower Queen Anne station would probably be somewhere around the Uptown, as that's the natural center of the area's development.

The main timing issue isn't the other tunneling operation. It's digging up Second Avenue during the 99 project, which involves a relatively short period with no 99 while the new and existing tie together, and a much longer period of widening/rebuilding Alaskan Way after the viaduct is torn down. Even if the disruption is managable, it's a major point for the opposition.

Regarding station locations, providing a general sense of that is a pretty basic element of selling a concept to the voters.

Regarding timing of a vote / what sells, from my limited/outdated campaign history, it was clear that experts can have extremely varied opinions. There's no definitive answer, even later when you can say what worked and what didn't (because you don't know how other approaches might have worked).

A much bigger problem is that without some design and site analysis, you'd have no idea what it would cost, except the vaguest guesses from past projects, maybe resulting in a 2-1 range. That would be poor policy, and you'd get killed in a vote for overall project funding.

Voters were suckered by utter BS from Dick Falkenberry (I voted against his taxi-driver guesses though I voted yes when it became a reasonable proposal), but that won't happen again.

[alexjonlin]

I really hope this can gain some steam. Of course the hardest part will be the financing. If the economy is well into recovery by 2014, a $4-5b Sodo-West Seattle package could have a good chance of passing, but if not it might be necessary to start even smaller to get anything passed. Maybe Westlake-Ballard could be the initial phase, as that is the absolute most important segment, followed by extensions to Crown Hill and well into West Seattle a few years later?
Is the idea that this would be instead of expanding the streetcar network, or do you still want both to move forward?

[Rogue Linguist]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

If you get this Ballard Line built, how about developing Discovery Park to be your version of Stanley/Washington/Golden Gate Park? It may be a little too far from Downtown to be ideal, but with a train going that way, and a shuttle bus from the nearest station, people might actually find good enough reason to go there.

I know! Nobody ever goes there because they don't know it's there, even though it's the biggest park in the city. When I mention "Discovery Park" to city residents, they give me this quizzical look. Because they don't know what I'm talking about. It's a shame, really, given how big and beautiful it is. It's true--it's hard to get there. Anything that would create a higher profile for the park would be a good thing in my opinion.

[Rogue Linguist]

They should also have a nudist beach at Discovery Park. I would take the subway there. And just sit around and look at all the naked people.

[UrbanBen]

Originally Posted by mhays

The main timing issue isn't the other tunneling operation. It's digging up Second Avenue during the 99 project, which involves a relatively short period with no 99 while the new and existing tie together, and a much longer period of widening/rebuilding Alaskan Way after the viaduct is torn down. Even if the disruption is managable, it's a major point for the opposition.

Regarding station locations, providing a general sense of that is a pretty basic element of selling a concept to the voters.

Regarding timing of a vote / what sells, from my limited/outdated campaign history, it was clear that experts can have extremely varied opinions. There's no definitive answer, even later when you can say what worked and what didn't (because you don't know how other approaches might have worked).

A much bigger problem is that without some design and site analysis, you'd have no idea what it would cost, except the vaguest guesses from past projects, maybe resulting in a 2-1 range. That would be poor policy, and you'd get killed in a vote for overall project funding.

Voters were suckered by utter BS from Dick Falkenberry (I voted against his taxi-driver guesses though I voted yes when it became a reasonable proposal), but that won't happen again.

That's why I'm not talking about costs (past clearly in the billions) - we don't know, and we need some study work to find out.

There are stations on the map - I'm saying making those exact before a planner actually determines ridership isn't a great idea.

[k2000k]

Interesting idea. I am not so sure Seattlites would be as gungho about the idea if there wasn't going to be funds from outside the area, though I certainly concede that the desire for transit might be so strong that it could be the case. I can't say I blame the suburban and rural individuals being hestitant to fund that kind of program no matter how much Seattle might need it. If the initiative stays a paid for only by metro seattle kind of thing then, as a Seattle resident, it would have my support.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by UrbanBen

That's why I'm not talking about costs (past clearly in the billions) - we don't know, and we need some study work to find out.

There are stations on the map - I'm saying making those exact before a planner actually determines ridership isn't a great idea.

I'm saying a winnable vote and a well-run program need the sort of semi-accurate projection that can only happen through a reasonable amount of concept design. That's more than studying. It means an initial projection about location, stations, etc.

Local agencies have gotten way more conservative in their estimating. That, plus the economy, is why public agencies have routinely gotten bids 20% or more under their projections -- projections which were based on actual design. You'd be lucky to get within 50% without real site study (for example soil conditions) and preliminary design.

[RotoSequence]

Sounds neat, but who is footing the bill? If its Seattelites who are looking to pay for it themselves, then by all means, go for it. If you're looking for a statewide tax initiative to pay for a "make Seattle better" project you can go fuck yourselves.

[bgwah]

Originally Posted by RotoSequence

Sounds neat, but who is footing the bill? If its Seattelites who are looking to pay for it themselves, then by all means, go for it. If you're looking for a statewide tax initiative to pay for a "make Seattle better" project you can go fuck yourselves.

Of course no one was proposing that, you dimwitted troll.

[LCIII]

Originally Posted by RotoSequence

Sounds neat, but who is footing the bill? If its Seattelites who are looking to pay for it themselves, then by all means, go for it. If you're looking for a statewide tax initiative to pay for a "make Seattle better" project you can go fuck yourselves.

Jealous much?

[Nutterbug]

Do Seattleites pay taxes for upstate highways and other infrastructure?

[M'sFan]

Im a pretty conservative fellow, and live in a more rural area. I also state with near certainty that Seattle is a net exporter of tax dollars to the more rural parts of the state. I will check on this Monday when I get back to work.

[CityView Jim]

Originally Posted by bgwah

Of course no one was proposing that, you dimwitted troll.

There, there, now. This is his 9th carefully worded comment in the last year. Wonder what the other 8 were.

[Sounder]

Originally Posted by UrbanBen

As for paying for it - the current rail is being built with approximately a 1% sales tax. The next line we'd build, to Ballard most likely, would cost about the same (although I'd rather use something more progressive than sales tax!). Nobody's "barely" paying for anything - Seattle voted 75% in favor of the current rail, and polling shows we'd vote the same for more.

To fund it I'd set up special taxation districts near stations, have an annual fee on multifamily units and hotel rooms, and a transaction fee on single family home sales.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by UrbanBen

Upper Queen Anne comes up a lot whenever I talk about this.

Ballard-Downtown through Interbay is probably around $5 billion - alone.

Going under Queen Anne would add some $500 million - for one station through a very low density area. Queen Anne hasn't allowed dense development anywhere off the main street. Surprisingly, more ridership would come from transfers from Magnolia, and a *lot* more ridership would come from growth in Interbay, where there are no NIMBYs fighting density, and there are a number of developers interested in building a new, dense neighborhood.

Also, Interbay is basically the only option for a maintenance facility if you're building from downtown to Ballard. Going through Queen Anne leaves you without a good place.

It also makes sense that the line should make a left turn once past SC/LQA and run at or above grade along the existing railroad. It'll save you a bit of coin.

What sort of system are you looking at anyways? Will it share tracks in the tunnel with the Link, or will it be separate? Overhead power or third rail? Conventional or linear induction motor? Automated or driven?

[UrbanBen]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

It also makes sense that the line should make a left turn once past SC/LQA and run at or above grade along the existing railroad. It'll save you a bit of coin.

What sort of system are you looking at anyways? Will it share tracks in the tunnel with the Link, or will it be separate? Overhead power or third rail? Conventional or linear induction motor? Automated or driven?

New tunnel, for sure. The 3rd Ave tunnel will be near capacity once the Sound Transit 2 investments are built. Interlining more service isn't feasible.

If it's entirely grade separated, I'd love to make it automated, but there's a big problem with that - we don't have supportive state or federal governments, so we're stuck with groups like labor unions to do the political work to get systems like this passed. With that in mind, it's unlikely it could be automated.

It would make some sense to make it Link-compatible, but I'll leave that to the engineers.

[CityView Jim]

All this discussion about tunnelling for various transit expansion - be it Link, subway, or heavy rail - but I'm wondering the issue with going deeper. For example, building another line directly below the 3rd Ave system. Seems to work in other cities. Does someone in the know have an answer?