n7371f
Posts: 1572
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Sat May 13, 2017 9:41 pm

ER757 wrote:
Was at SEA yesterday and spoke to an administrator at POS about a couple of the topics in this thread and thought I'd pass along what I was told

Yes, the construction work on the south side for the International expansion has start and it is mostly "behind the scenes" at this point.
No, there is no plan to make the airport A-380 ready anytime soon
The shuttle to/from the light rail station may continue on past skybridge #6 at some point but as of now that's as far as they go (makes for one heck of a hike if you're flying out of the A concourse or the South Satellite!)
New cruise ship passenger staging area on level 1 of the parking garage is up and running - I took a look and it's pretty nice. Pax can check their bags for their return flight while still on the ship and don't have to recover them and check them when they arrive at the airport any longer
North Satellite expansion work is progressing on schedule so far.

That's it for now


Port would help itself if it didn't try to manage its own construction. I know DL was pressuring the Port about the delays for the new IFS facility on A and outsourcing it's oversight.
 
SFOATLFlyer
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 9:51 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Sat May 13, 2017 10:02 pm

masgniw wrote:
HPRamper wrote:
The Seattle light-rail system, compared to those of other metros, is a joke. Portland got it right, Seattle got it very wrong. Considering that half of the metro area has zero light rail service.


I don't understand this logic at all. Do you expect that light rail is just supposed to appear overnight to your doorstep? It's a long haul to get rail to a city that dragged its feet on the matter for decades. The network is growing and is doing so on schedule.


I totally agree. It takes time, SEA at least has some form of rail transportation. I see plenty of airports in cities that need it. Air service and rail service do not go hand-in-hand. Look at Europe. Many of the large airports are multi-modal with service not just into the city centre but other destinations as well. Not too many cities in the U.S. can make this claim.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Sat May 13, 2017 11:15 pm

SFOATLFlyer wrote:
masgniw wrote:
HPRamper wrote:
The Seattle light-rail system, compared to those of other metros, is a joke. Portland got it right, Seattle got it very wrong. Considering that half of the metro area has zero light rail service.


I don't understand this logic at all. Do you expect that light rail is just supposed to appear overnight to your doorstep? It's a long haul to get rail to a city that dragged its feet on the matter for decades. The network is growing and is doing so on schedule.


I totally agree. It takes time, SEA at least has some form of rail transportation. I see plenty of airports in cities that need it. Air service and rail service do not go hand-in-hand. Look at Europe. Many of the large airports are multi-modal with service not just into the city centre but other destinations as well. Not too many cities in the U.S. can make this claim.


I think light rail is a great benefit to the airport passenger, though for now it is limited. The challenge with Seattle is that the light rail is really west of where a lot of people are. There is also a strong lobby that would prefer light rail over roads, but bike paths over light rail. Out here in Maple Valley, there is the old Milwaukee Road alignment that is a trail ([Tukwila]-Renton-Maple Valley). It would be so much less expensive to put light rail on that right-of-way and allow growth along that corridor NOW when home prices in Seattle and the eastside are outrageous, but I don't think there is even any proposal on the drawing board for any light rail out this way. So we have essentially a two lane road for half the distance to Renton. It also could have linked up with the now unused right of way from Renton to Bellevue, Kirkland, and Woodinville, and around the north end of Lake Washington. Instead, that rail corridor is I believe slated to be another bike path. I would love to be able to ride the light rail from Maple Valley (for example) to the airport, and the corridor already exists, but instead the first time anyone east of I-5 in South King County will run into the line is when they get to the airport in their car.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3602
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Sat May 13, 2017 11:55 pm

Parking at the light rail stations is minimal unless you are riding a bike as that's what was intended to get the cars off the roads. The cost of the existing light rail was over top and frankly not supportable without extreme taxation.

The fact is Seattle, King County is uber liberal and for many the thought of more taxes is not objectionable if it brings something to the liberal cause.

I always wonder when someone from just about any Asian country deplanes their flight and steps into the SEATC airport only to find themselves in a time warp back to the mid seventies. The airport sucks barley describes the existing facilities. The current airport manager is a two time space shuttle commander so it looks like they have selected a name rather than substance.
 
masgniw
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:14 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Sun May 14, 2017 12:07 am

BravoOne wrote:
The cost of the existing light rail was over top and frankly not supportable without extreme taxation.


Extreme? Since you didn't care to source or qualify your "over the top" claim, here are some actual figures on the rather minimal-to-modest, voter-approved increases:

Car tab (MVET) -----1.1% ($110 annually for each $10,000 of vehicle valuation)
Sales & Use Tax ----1.4% ($0.14 on a $10 taxable purchase)
Property Tax -------$0.25 annually per $1,000 of assessed valuation ($100 annually on a $400,000 house)
Rental car sales -----0.8 percent ($0.80 on a $100 car rental)

BravoOne wrote:
The fact is Seattle, King County is uber liberal and for many the thought of more taxes is not objectionable if it brings something to the liberal cause.


Today I learned that transportation is a liberal cause. :roll: :roll: Don't bring partisan politics into this.
 
User avatar
TransWorldOne
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 12:13 am

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Sun May 14, 2017 2:33 am

SEA is in dire need of a concessions overhaul and I believe it is in the works as I've seen posters advertising new vendors around the terminal as of late. YVR to the north and PDX to the south have much, much nicer facilities with better food options. I believe the Port of Seattle has realized that the terminal and it's amenities are not up to world class standards and they are desperately trying to play catch up.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Sun May 14, 2017 6:26 am

masgniw wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
The cost of the existing light rail was over top and frankly not supportable without extreme taxation.


Extreme? Since you didn't care to source or qualify your "over the top" claim, here are some actual figures on the rather minimal-to-modest, voter-approved increases:

Car tab (MVET) -----1.1% ($110 annually for each $10,000 of vehicle valuation)
Sales & Use Tax ----1.4% ($0.14 on a $10 taxable purchase)
Property Tax -------$0.25 annually per $1,000 of assessed valuation ($100 annually on a $400,000 house)
Rental car sales -----0.8 percent ($0.80 on a $100 car rental)

BravoOne wrote:
The fact is Seattle, King County is uber liberal and for many the thought of more taxes is not objectionable if it brings something to the liberal cause.


Today I learned that transportation is a liberal cause. :roll: :roll: Don't bring partisan politics into this.


Again, I think light rail to the airport is wonderful, but it isn't cheap. Per household for our region is close to $700 per year in taxes and fees in support of ST. I live in Maple Valley - pretty rural - and we pay almost $5000/year just in property taxes. Then you add in the fact that many municipalities are close to or over 10% in sales tax and it just makes it worse.

I also am frustrated that we've had politicians say point blank "no more freeway lanes" when we have freeways like HWY 167 that is STILL only 2 lanes each way for much of it's distance. When you have only two freeways connecting King and Pierce counties, and one of them is just two lanes each way, of course you're going to have traffic. Add in my area - Maple Valley - and we have essentially two main corridors to get to the urban areas, Kent Kangley and Maple Valley Highway, both of which are just one lane each way out of Maple Valley with heavy congestion and no prospects for having two lanes each way for the distance. Buses sit in traffic on Kent Kangley, and we need those buses in order to get to the Sounder or Link. It just doesn't make sense.

I am over it though. We've lived here our entire lives, but we're done. We are leaving the state and looking forward to a lower cost of living elsewhere.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
masgniw
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:14 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Sun May 14, 2017 3:23 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
masgniw wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
The cost of the existing light rail was over top and frankly not supportable without extreme taxation.


Extreme? Since you didn't care to source or qualify your "over the top" claim, here are some actual figures on the rather minimal-to-modest, voter-approved increases:

Car tab (MVET) -----1.1% ($110 annually for each $10,000 of vehicle valuation)
Sales & Use Tax ----1.4% ($0.14 on a $10 taxable purchase)
Property Tax -------$0.25 annually per $1,000 of assessed valuation ($100 annually on a $400,000 house)
Rental car sales -----0.8 percent ($0.80 on a $100 car rental)

BravoOne wrote:
The fact is Seattle, King County is uber liberal and for many the thought of more taxes is not objectionable if it brings something to the liberal cause.


Today I learned that transportation is a liberal cause. :roll: :roll: Don't bring partisan politics into this.


Again, I think light rail to the airport is wonderful, but it isn't cheap. Per household for our region is close to $700 per year in taxes and fees in support of ST. I live in Maple Valley - pretty rural - and we pay almost $5000/year just in property taxes. Then you add in the fact that many municipalities are close to or over 10% in sales tax and it just makes it worse.

I also am frustrated that we've had politicians say point blank "no more freeway lanes" when we have freeways like HWY 167 that is STILL only 2 lanes each way for much of it's distance. When you have only two freeways connecting King and Pierce counties, and one of them is just two lanes each way, of course you're going to have traffic. Add in my area - Maple Valley - and we have essentially two main corridors to get to the urban areas, Kent Kangley and Maple Valley Highway, both of which are just one lane each way out of Maple Valley with heavy congestion and no prospects for having two lanes each way for the distance. Buses sit in traffic on Kent Kangley, and we need those buses in order to get to the Sounder or Link. It just doesn't make sense.

I am over it though. We've lived here our entire lives, but we're done. We are leaving the state and looking forward to a lower cost of living elsewhere.


Of course it's too bad you haven't (and won't for the foreseeable future) seen any Link service to MV. It's also unfortunate you've been paying for it, but that's sort of the way taxes work.

Widening roads simply creates what's known as "induced demand" -- all it does is create more traffic. It's a well-documented phenomenon and I recommend this Wired article on it: https://www.wired.com/2016/04/widening- ... nit-texas/

You're deciding to leave is interesting and unfortunate. I am a Seattle native and I fully understand your rationale.
 
SeaDoo
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:00 am

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Sun May 14, 2017 4:28 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
masgniw wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
The cost of the existing light rail was over top and frankly not supportable without extreme taxation.


Extreme? Since you didn't care to source or qualify your "over the top" claim, here are some actual figures on the rather minimal-to-modest, voter-approved increases:

Car tab (MVET) -----1.1% ($110 annually for each $10,000 of vehicle valuation)
Sales & Use Tax ----1.4% ($0.14 on a $10 taxable purchase)
Property Tax -------$0.25 annually per $1,000 of assessed valuation ($100 annually on a $400,000 house)
Rental car sales -----0.8 percent ($0.80 on a $100 car rental)

BravoOne wrote:
The fact is Seattle, King County is uber liberal and for many the thought of more taxes is not objectionable if it brings something to the liberal cause.


Today I learned that transportation is a liberal cause. :roll: :roll: Don't bring partisan politics into this.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


No matter your political persuasion, this is going to continue to be a problem for those in WA with the ruling political party. Lots of growth, and no freeway growth. Heck in Seattle, they have "road diets." If you are unfamiliar with this term, it means taking lanes away from existing roads, (i.e. turning a 5 lane road into a 3 lane, turning a 4 lane road into a 2 or 3 lane road, etc.) When you continue to add thousands and thousands of new homes and the main solution is to put up traffic lights, and not expand roads, traffic congestion is going to get much worse. They took a 6 lane freeway running through downtown Seattle and planned to change it to a 4 lane freeway. My understanding is the new smaller freeway will have no ramps in the downtown core. I believe the plan costs billions of dollars. It is over budget and late. The current mayor said this is part of their plan to only have people use cars for "appropriate" trips. You got that right folks, the mayor wants to decide when you can drive your car for what he deems as appropriate. How is that for freedom? I think he is fine with you riding a bus. Obviously that can be a problem if it doesn't go where you are starting or where you are trying to get to. He is okay with you riding a bike. I am an avid bicyclist, but have you seen the hills in rainy Seattle?

-End of rant

No matter your political persuasion, this is going to continue to be a problem for those in WA with the ruling political party. Lots of growth, and no freeway growth. Heck in Seattle, they have "road diets." If you are unfamiliar with this term, it means taking lanes away from existing roads, (i.e. turning a 5 lane road into a 3 lane, turning a 4 lane road into a 2 or 3 lane road, etc.) When you continue to add thousands and thousands of new homes and the main solution is to put up traffic lights, and not expand roads, traffic congestion is going to get much worse. They took a 6 lane freeway running through downtown Seattle and planned to change it to a 4 lane freeway. My understanding is the new smaller freeway will have no ramps in the downtown core. I believe the plan costs billions of dollars. It is over budget and late. The current mayor said this is part of their plan to only have people use cars for "appropriate" trips. You got that right folks, the mayor wants to decide when you can drive your car for what he deems as appropriate. How is that for freedom? I think he is fine with you riding a bus. Obviously that can be a problem if it doesn't go where you are starting or where you are trying to get to. He is okay with you riding a bike. I am an avid bicyclist, but have you seen the hills in rainy Seattle?

-End of rant

Again, I think light rail to the airport is wonderful, but it isn't cheap. Per household for our region is close to $700 per year in taxes and fees in support of ST. I live in Maple Valley - pretty rural - and we pay almost $5000/year just in property taxes. Then you add in the fact that many municipalities are close to or over 10% in sales tax and it just makes it worse.

I also am frustrated that we've had politicians say point blank "no more freeway lanes" when we have freeways like HWY 167 that is STILL only 2 lanes each way for much of it's distance. When you have only two freeways connecting King and Pierce counties, and one of them is just two lanes each way, of course you're going to have traffic. Add in my area - Maple Valley - and we have essentially two main corridors to get to the urban areas, Kent Kangley and Maple Valley Highway, both of which are just one lane each way out of Maple Valley with heavy congestion and no prospects for having two lanes each way for the distance. Buses sit in traffic on Kent Kangley, and we need those buses in order to get to the Sounder or Link. It just doesn't make sense.

I am over it though. We've lived here our entire lives, but we're done. We are leaving the state and looking forward to a lower cost of living elsewhere.
 
SeaDoo
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 3:00 am

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Sun May 14, 2017 4:29 pm

So apparently I don't know how to quote appropriately.

Here is my rant backing up PlanesNTrains:


No matter your political persuasion, this is going to continue to be a problem for those in WA with the ruling political party. Lots of growth, and no freeway growth. Heck in Seattle, they have "road diets." If you are unfamiliar with this term, it means taking lanes away from existing roads, (i.e. turning a 5 lane road into a 3 lane, turning a 4 lane road into a 2 or 3 lane road, etc.) When you continue to add thousands and thousands of new homes and the main solution is to put up traffic lights, and not expand roads, traffic congestion is going to get much worse. They took a 6 lane freeway running through downtown Seattle and planned to change it to a 4 lane freeway. My understanding is the new smaller freeway will have no ramps in the downtown core. I believe the plan costs billions of dollars. It is over budget and late. The current mayor said this is part of their plan to only have people use cars for "appropriate" trips. You got that right folks, the mayor wants to decide when you can drive your car for what he deems as appropriate. How is that for freedom? I think he is fine with you riding a bus. Obviously that can be a problem if it doesn't go where you are starting or where you are trying to get to. He is okay with you riding a bike. I am an avid bicyclist, but have you seen the hills in rainy Seattle?

-End of rant
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Sun May 14, 2017 5:26 pm

masgniw wrote:
HPRamper wrote:
The Seattle light-rail system, compared to those of other metros, is a joke. Portland got it right, Seattle got it very wrong. Considering that half of the metro area has zero light rail service.


I don't understand this logic at all. Do you expect that light rail is just supposed to appear overnight to your doorstep? It's a long haul to get rail to a city that dragged its feet on the matter for decades. The network is growing and is doing so on schedule.

At the risk of dragging this thread off-topic (sorry mods), I had to address your "on-schedule" comment. The length of time it's taking to extend light rail to the north, south and east is an absolute joke. Yes, it's on schedule but the schedule is preposterously slow. For Heaven's sake, they built the trans-continentel railroad in the 1800's after that the light rail system in Seattle in the 21st century!! I know it has a lot to do with NIMBY's, EIS's etc, but c'mon.....it was needed 20 years ago and it's still 7 or 8 (or more) years away from completion. Hell, they haven't even started on some segments
 
masgniw
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:14 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Sun May 14, 2017 8:42 pm

ER757 wrote:
masgniw wrote:
HPRamper wrote:
The Seattle light-rail system, compared to those of other metros, is a joke. Portland got it right, Seattle got it very wrong. Considering that half of the metro area has zero light rail service.


I don't understand this logic at all. Do you expect that light rail is just supposed to appear overnight to your doorstep? It's a long haul to get rail to a city that dragged its feet on the matter for decades. The network is growing and is doing so on schedule.

At the risk of dragging this thread off-topic (sorry mods), I had to address your "on-schedule" comment. The length of time it's taking to extend light rail to the north, south and east is an absolute joke. Yes, it's on schedule but the schedule is preposterously slow. For Heaven's sake, they built the trans-continentel railroad in the 1800's after that the light rail system in Seattle in the 21st century!! I know it has a lot to do with NIMBY's, EIS's etc, but c'mon.....it was needed 20 years ago and it's still 7 or 8 (or more) years away from completion. Hell, they haven't even started on some segments


Are you serious? Boring tunnels of that gauge and length don't happen overnight. Yes, it was needed a long time ago, but the region balked for decades when it came to putting down the cash to build real rail.
 
masgniw
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:14 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Sun May 14, 2017 8:53 pm

SeaDoo wrote:
Lots of growth, and no freeway growth. Heck in Seattle, they have "road diets." If you are unfamiliar with this term, it means taking lanes away from existing roads, (i.e. turning a 5 lane road into a 3 lane, turning a 4 lane road into a 2 or 3 lane road, etc.) When you continue to add thousands and thousands of new homes and the main solution is to put up traffic lights, and not expand roads, traffic congestion is going to get much worse.


Wrong. Building more lanes simply incentives more traffic to fill the roadway. I highly recommend reading more on "induced demand" -- here's a strong article to get you started: https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traf ... ed-demand/

As one civil engineer pointed out: "“Trying to solve congestion by making roadways wider is like trying to solve obesity by buying bigger pants.”

SeaDoo wrote:
You got that right folks, the mayor wants to decide when you can drive your car for what he deems as appropriate. How is that for freedom?


That's a disingenuous and slanted reading of the plan. The mayor wants to incentivize more efficient modes of transit. Single occupancy vehicles generally don't represent that. What's happening is no different than levying taxes on cigarettes to disincentivize their use. Do you have the freedom to smoke? Sure -- but because we know the social and personal problems caused by their use, we've decided it's best to heavily disincentivize such a behavior. Same thing with single occupancy vehicles -- they are a part of the inefficiency of the overall transit system, so be prepared to pay if you want to stick with them for all your trips.
 
GSPSPOT
Posts: 2490
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:44 am

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Sun May 14, 2017 10:37 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
flybynight wrote:
I fly in and out of SEA usually every other week, So I am there a lot.

But I feel SEA is struggling and with all the growth it feels far from world class.

3 - Amenities - to me it seems far behind, even when compared to PDX. I was just in DEN, and it blows SEA away
4 - Food court - nice enough. Needs to be bigger. Great place to sit and watch activity on the runway. And really, it needs to step it up in selection.
5 - lack of proper shopping especially for international travels.
6 - International terminal is seriously lacking. I know changes are coming


To a large degree you can blame the carriers that operate there. In trying to keep their costs low (not the same as keeping fares low!) they have for years delayed and demanded scrimping by the airport authority.

Alaska fought the current international terminal expansion.

https://blog.alaskaair.com/alaska-airli ... -terminal/

Southwest fought against the plan that yielded the facilities in place today.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/so ... ing-field/

It all comes down to willingness to pay: how much, by whom, and when?

It's much the same elsewhere. The airlines don't want to be on the hook for improvements... ANYWHERE.
Great Lakes, great life.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3144
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Sun May 14, 2017 11:45 pm

The single most expense raising thing is housing. (a sloganeer might add the next two could be called housing and more housing!) And what leaves that unredeemed is that there is no flat ground 10, 20, or 30 miles away on which inexpensive houses or freeways can be built.

By the way, most of that realestate taxes go to the state, who take a disproportionate share of that money and give it to rural counties.
Last edited by frmrCapCadet on Sun May 14, 2017 11:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
speedbird52
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:30 am

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Mon May 15, 2017 12:50 am

JBoy wrote:
I believe (not confirmed) that the runways are too close together to all be used at the same time. Also, they are confined in real estate. They don't have much room to grow beyond the plans already in place.

I think you believe wrong: I have seen all three being used together all the time!
 
speedbird52
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:30 am

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Mon May 15, 2017 1:19 am

dc10lover wrote:
Maybe people in Snohomish County and northward should use Bellingham Airport?

I live in Snohomish county- A drive to Bellingham would A, take more then an hour and B, not provide any usable flight options for me.
 
ytib
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:22 am

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Mon May 15, 2017 1:42 am

speedbird52 wrote:
JBoy wrote:
I believe (not confirmed) that the runways are too close together to all be used at the same time. Also, they are confined in real estate. They don't have much room to grow beyond the plans already in place.

I think you believe wrong: I have seen all three being used together all the time!


On days with visual approaches yes they will use multiple runways however 16L/34R is not at full capacity since it then leads to delays getting the traffic across the runway to the gate. In ILS conditions they are limited.
Airbus:318,319,320,321,332,333,388
Boeing:707,717,732,733,734,73Q,735,73G,738,7M8,739,752,753,742,74L,744,762,763,772,77L,77W,789
Misc:142,CN1,CR2,CR7,DC8,DH2,DH8,D8Q,D10,D95,EM2,ER3,ER4,E70,100,J31,M11,M83,M88,M90,SF3

Where is Neil
 
speedbird52
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:30 am

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Mon May 15, 2017 2:38 am

Isn't 16L/34R The one used most commonly for Takeoff?
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15412
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Mon May 15, 2017 2:53 am

flybynight wrote:
Better ecstatic's. Overall the airport seems a little bush league


1. Was "aesthetics" the word you were going for?
2. If so, what would you have them do differently?
3. How on earth did you arrive at the conclusion that anything about this airport seems "bush league" to you?
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
flybynight
Topic Author
Posts: 1490
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Tue May 16, 2017 3:51 pm

EA CO AS wrote:
flybynight wrote:
Better ecstatic's. Overall the airport seems a little bush league


1. Was "aesthetics" the word you were going for?
2. If so, what would you have them do differently?
3. How on earth did you arrive at the conclusion that anything about this airport seems "bush league" to you?



Compare to other airports of course! I assume you travel so you've likely got other airports to compare to.
YVR and PDX are both better locally.

Except for the central food court, there is very little else to SEA. And what is annoying is having to take the train over to the central food court and then back to say the N-gates.
Heia Norge!
 
hiflyeras
Posts: 2050
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Tue May 16, 2017 4:27 pm

flybynight wrote:
Except for the central food court, there is very little else to SEA. And what is annoying is having to take the train over to the central food court and then back to say the N-gates.


Major food and beverage changes are planned for the expanded N concourse, including a full-service restaurant on the new, upper level adjacent to the new Alaska Lounge.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Tue May 16, 2017 8:07 pm

flybynight wrote:
EA CO AS wrote:
flybynight wrote:
Better ecstatic's. Overall the airport seems a little bush league


1. Was "aesthetics" the word you were going for?
2. If so, what would you have them do differently?
3. How on earth did you arrive at the conclusion that anything about this airport seems "bush league" to you?



Compare to other airports of course! I assume you travel so you've likely got other airports to compare to.
YVR and PDX are both better locally.

Except for the central food court, there is very little else to SEA. And what is annoying is having to take the train over to the central food court and then back to say the N-gates.


Being stuck at SEA for 30 hours once, I had plenty of time to roam around. From the farthest end of S to the farthest end of N, including I believe two train rides, was only 11 minutes at a leisurely pace. Getting to the Central Terminal is, what, 5-6 minutes? Not exactly the end of the world. It will only get better as more work is done.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
n7371f
Posts: 1572
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Wed May 17, 2017 5:27 am

speedbird52 wrote:
Isn't 16L/34R The one used most commonly for Takeoff?


Actually ATC will use C ASAP when taking off to the south, except for Heavies that request/require L.
 
n7371f
Posts: 1572
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Wed May 17, 2017 5:30 am

TransWorldOne wrote:
SEA is in dire need of a concessions overhaul and I believe it is in the works as I've seen posters advertising new vendors around the terminal as of late. YVR to the north and PDX to the south have much, much nicer facilities with better food options. I believe the Port of Seattle has realized that the terminal and it's amenities are not up to world class standards and they are desperately trying to play catch up.


You mean that awful dump "Casa Del Agave" or whatever it's called across from B7 doesn't cut it?!?! It's about the biggest pile in airport concessions left, now that "Home Team" has been eviscerated in LAX T-6. It's crowded. The premise - mexican food and margaritas - are awful. Long live the HMS Hall of Shame.
 
User avatar
flybynight
Topic Author
Posts: 1490
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Mon May 22, 2017 4:31 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
masgniw wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
The cost of the existing light rail was over top and frankly not supportable without extreme taxation.


Extreme? Since you didn't care to source or qualify your "over the top" claim, here are some actual figures on the rather minimal-to-modest, voter-approved increases:

Car tab (MVET) -----1.1% ($110 annually for each $10,000 of vehicle valuation)
Sales & Use Tax ----1.4% ($0.14 on a $10 taxable purchase)
Property Tax -------$0.25 annually per $1,000 of assessed valuation ($100 annually on a $400,000 house)
Rental car sales -----0.8 percent ($0.80 on a $100 car rental)

BravoOne wrote:
The fact is Seattle, King County is uber liberal and for many the thought of more taxes is not objectionable if it brings something to the liberal cause.


Today I learned that transportation is a liberal cause. :roll: :roll: Don't bring partisan politics into this.


Again, I think light rail to the airport is wonderful, but it isn't cheap. Per household for our region is close to $700 per year in taxes and fees in support of ST. I live in Maple Valley - pretty rural - and we pay almost $5000/year just in property taxes. Then you add in the fact that many municipalities are close to or over 10% in sales tax and it just makes it worse.

I also am frustrated that we've had politicians say point blank "no more freeway lanes" when we have freeways like HWY 167 that is STILL only 2 lanes each way for much of it's distance. When you have only two freeways connecting King and Pierce counties, and one of them is just two lanes each way, of course you're going to have traffic. Add in my area - Maple Valley - and we have essentially two main corridors to get to the urban areas, Kent Kangley and Maple Valley Highway, both of which are just one lane each way out of Maple Valley with heavy congestion and no prospects for having two lanes each way for the distance. Buses sit in traffic on Kent Kangley, and we need those buses in order to get to the Sounder or Link. It just doesn't make sense.

I am over it though. We've lived here our entire lives, but we're done. We are leaving the state and looking forward to a lower cost of living elsewhere.


You know what Seattle truly needs? A real bypass freeway. One that goes way East and connects back to I-5 north of Marysville.
If you could take he trucks and other traffic heading to/from Vancouver and to/from CA and OR to truly bypass Seattle and Belleuve it would make a huge difference. Right now I5 goes straight through downtown Seattle (how freaking dumb!) and 405 is not any better going straight through Bellevue.
Combine that with the light rail and traffic in the Puget Sound would quickly become manageable. Right now it is a joke. Adding lightrail to Bellevue is not going to help when they are going to reduce one express lane across the I90 floating bridge.
I am all for lightrail and public transportation, but a good road system for cars and trucks is needed too.
Western WA get your thumb out of your butt and build a new highway. Plenty of room on the eastside. Hell expand Highway 18 north all the way to Marysville or even Mt Vernon. Toll it if you have too. I don't get why in 2017 it has become impossible to build new roads. What has happened to America!!!
Heia Norge!
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3602
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Mon May 22, 2017 4:33 pm

Great idea!
 
User avatar
flybynight
Topic Author
Posts: 1490
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Mon May 22, 2017 5:33 pm

RL777 wrote:
SeaTac is one of my favorite airports despite many parts of it being inefficient and poorly designed. SEA traffic is indeed a joke and I don't even think about driving unless my flight departs/arrives late at night. The light rail system does indeed leave much to be desired but I believe the Port Authority is at least committed to the program and its reasonable to expect potential upgrades in the future. As per the A380 issue, even though Emirates has mentioned they would prefer to send a single frequency using the A388 the authority has said they won't be making the necessary changes to allow for scheduled service as the costs and logistics far outweigh the needs of a single airline.


If SEA is serious about being world-class, it should make the changes. I bet BA or LH would consider flying their A380's to SEA. BA currently flies the A380 (seasonally at least) to YVR.
Heia Norge!
 
747megatop
Posts: 1712
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Mon May 22, 2017 5:45 pm

maxlg wrote:
flybynight wrote:
Prost wrote:
In Seattle, us locals never say 'the 5.' In LA, yes, but in Seattle, it's just I-5, or I-405, never 'the' in front of it. One of our many quirks.

A southern access point to the freeways is going to occur with the continuation it SR-509 to I-5, intersecting around Kent/DesMoines road.

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/i5/sr ... ionrelief/
http://www.ci.seatac.wa.us/Modules/Show ... entid=6913

Like everything else in this neck of the woods, if you think it should happen in 2-3 years, it'll be done in 10.


Haha, yes, I know. I live here too. But I actually call it both I90, I405 and I5 as well using the dreaded "the" word.

Interesting to see the updates to the N Terminal.

But the question that remains unanswered - are the runways at SEA that much closer than SFO? If landings were taking place on L and R, couldn't takeoffs occur right down in the middle on C?


Someone might have already said this as I haven't read the whole thread but the far, third runway (I believe 34R) from the terminals was built as a bad weather runway at least when it was proposed in 1988.

http://historylink.org/File/4211
A article on the third runway project.

Let me do some armchair design work here. I am tempted to suggest; may be a 3 runway system is bad after all...for SEA. Maybe, they should keep the 3rd new runway as is; get rid of the center runway; demolish the existing terminals and move the existing runway to the extreme right. The terminals should be in the center as a series of midfield terminals ATL style OR on long elongated terminal (something similar to the councourse at DTW or similar to DXB T3). I know this is an almost impossible task due to various factors but the reality of SEA is that it is a land locked airport with an outdated layout with no room for expansion.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4016
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Mon May 22, 2017 6:10 pm

747megatop wrote:
maxlg wrote:
flybynight wrote:

Haha, yes, I know. I live here too. But I actually call it both I90, I405 and I5 as well using the dreaded "the" word.

Interesting to see the updates to the N Terminal.

But the question that remains unanswered - are the runways at SEA that much closer than SFO? If landings were taking place on L and R, couldn't takeoffs occur right down in the middle on C?


Someone might have already said this as I haven't read the whole thread but the far, third runway (I believe 34R) from the terminals was built as a bad weather runway at least when it was proposed in 1988.

http://historylink.org/File/4211
A article on the third runway project.

Let me do some armchair design work here. I am tempted to suggest; may be a 3 runway system is bad after all...for SEA. Maybe, they should keep the 3rd new runway as is; get rid of the center runway; demolish the existing terminals and move the existing runway to the extreme right. The terminals should be in the center as a series of midfield terminals ATL style OR on long elongated terminal (something similar to the councourse at DTW or similar to DXB T3). I know this is an almost impossible task due to various factors but the reality of SEA is that it is a land locked airport with an outdated layout with no room for expansion.
The advantage of a 3rd runway is when you have construction you still have 2 runways.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Mon May 22, 2017 6:43 pm

flybynight wrote:

If SEA is serious about being world-class, it should make the changes. I bet BA or LH would consider flying their A380's to SEA. BA currently flies the A380 (seasonally at least) to YVR.


SEA doesn't A380 capability to be world class. The POS is right, no need to spend money on the possibly of A380 service coming to SEA or even two flights a day, it's better spent on other improvements.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1072
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Tue May 23, 2017 12:52 am

flybynight wrote:
1 - Favorite thing - ease of parking the car and getting quickly into/out the airport...but prices just went up again to $30/day
....
4 - Food court - nice enough. Needs to be bigger. Great place to sit and watch activity on the runway. And really, it needs to step it up in selection.
5 - lack of proper shopping especially for international travels.
....
2 - Bigger food court and proper food courts in the S and N terminals.
....
4 - Better ecstatic's. Overall the airport seems a little bush league


Parking is easy? On a recent trip, I exited the garage ramp following a sign that said 80-something parking spaces were available to the right, close to Alaska. Their data was bad. After 20 minutes of driving up and down aisles, including passing the 150 claimed parking spots to the left, I found a space another level up at the far end of the garage from my airline.

The food court isn't bad, although crowded. The windows are great, but the seats by the windows are always taken, and the view is mostly of parked Q400's. Imagine adding a second floor in that area though. The view would be excellent.

That asian noodles place in the food court needs to be run out of the airport on a rail. Multiple times, I've fallen prey to thinking, "Chow mein and orange chicken sounds good. Maybe they've gotten better. Acceptable fast food noodles is pretty low bar to hit." Multiple times I've been uncomfortably disappointed.

I think the N-gates will be getting some more food options when the expansion just about to start there is finished.

I would be absolutely thrilled to excuse the aesthetics if they shut off the annoying water sounds at the drinking fountains and instead fixed them so the water streams made it more than 2 inches out of the nozzle.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1072
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Tue May 23, 2017 1:13 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Again, I think light rail to the airport is wonderful, but it isn't cheap. Per household for our region is close to $700 per year in taxes and fees in support of ST.


Where'd your $700 figure come from? It's actually much higher than that.

Just consider Sound Transit 3. The tax area for that program includes about 1.1 million households. The cost will be $53 billion. Since the work is spread out over basically the full funding period, I think they largely avoid financing costs, but even that, over the 25 project period, works out to over $1900 per household per year.

You don't notice how bad it is, though, because it's spread across so many different funding sources that you don't normally think about, including federal taxes.

masgniw wrote:
HPRamper wrote:
The Seattle light-rail system, compared to those of other metros, is a joke. Portland got it right, Seattle got it very wrong. Considering that half of the metro area has zero light rail service.


I don't understand this logic at all. Do you expect that light rail is just supposed to appear overnight to your doorstep? It's a long haul to get rail to a city that dragged its feet on the matter for decades. The network is growing and is doing so on schedule.


Seattle's is growing, but definitely not on schedule, nor on budget, except the inflated revised budgets and schedules - Northgate to Lynnwood, for example, was approved at a cost of $1.5 billion, but Sound Transit has largely stopped talking about cost. In the few places it's mentioned publicly, they usually say $1.5 to $1.7 billion, but their requests for US DOT grants disclose an expected cost of over $2.3 billion. At least that segment's cost hasn't exploded as badly as the UW extension did, although I guess there's still time to mess up.

I'm still trying to figure out if the connections will ever, even 20 years from now when the currently planned work is supposed to be completed, be comparable to what Portland is nearing completion of. When I lived In Portland, I could walk a couple blocks to a bus stop. In 15 minutes, I was at the transit center. It was usually less than a 10 minute wait for the train, and then I was at the door to the terminal in another 30 minutes.

From UW to Seatac alone on Link takes 45 minutes, and it drops you off over 1/4 mile from the terminal. Even as an able-bodied person I find that to be an aggravating hassle when I've got more than a single checked bag.

Part of the time difference is because Portland Max has split routes that run either through dowtown to the west side, or skirting downtown to the airport. In Seattle, you have to go through downtown, with the accompanying train crowding and frequent stops. Since they planned to cram everyone except Tacoma passengers through downtown, without sidings to allow the use of express trains that could skip downtown stops, that is not going to get any better once the East side, West Seattle, and Ballard spurs, plus the Everett extension are added.

Currently, they're below 2/3 of their originally planned ridership for 2010, despite more population growth and worse road traffic than forecast. Those factors should have driven more traffic onto light rail, but it's just not providing the value it was supposed to.
 
Bald1983
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Tue May 23, 2017 2:11 am

[quote="flybynight"]I fly in and out of SEA usually every other week, So I am there a lot.

But I feel SEA is struggling and with all the growth it feels far from world class.

1 - Favorite thing - ease of parking the car and getting quickly into/out the airport...but prices just went up again to $30/day
2 - Traffic - oh man can it bad leaving or coming. Leaving around 5'ish and getting on I5 or I405 can be a nightmare
3 - Amenities - to me it seems far behind, even when compared to PDX. I was just in DEN, and it blows SEA away
4 - Food court - nice enough. Needs to be bigger. Great place to sit and watch activity on the runway. And really, it needs to step it up in selection.
5 - lack of proper shopping especially for international travels.
6 - International terminal is seriously lacking. I know changes are coming
7 - C'mon SEA, you charge enough. Make the upgrades to allow Emirates and LH to fly their A380's. And BA would likely consider it too, just like they did seasonally at YVR
8 - It seems to me that SEA seldom uses all three runways at the same time. Is it just me?

What I'd like to see:
1- Another proper exit from the airport. Perhaps south and directly onto to the 5
2 - Bigger food court and proper food courts in the S and N terminals.

Agree to most of what you write. However, it makes no sense to spend the huge amount of money to maybe accommodate an occasional A-380. The twins can do the job and connect Seattle to almost everywhere.
 
747megatop
Posts: 1712
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Tue May 30, 2017 9:35 pm

32andBelow wrote:
747megatop wrote:
maxlg wrote:

Someone might have already said this as I haven't read the whole thread but the far, third runway (I believe 34R) from the terminals was built as a bad weather runway at least when it was proposed in 1988.

http://historylink.org/File/4211
A article on the third runway project.

Let me do some armchair design work here. I am tempted to suggest; may be a 3 runway system is bad after all...for SEA. Maybe, they should keep the 3rd new runway as is; get rid of the center runway; demolish the existing terminals and move the existing runway to the extreme right. The terminals should be in the center as a series of midfield terminals ATL style OR on long elongated terminal (something similar to the councourse at DTW or similar to DXB T3). I know this is an almost impossible task due to various factors but the reality of SEA is that it is a land locked airport with an outdated layout with no room for expansion.
The advantage of a 3rd runway is when you have construction you still have 2 runways.


Well, construction does not happen 356 days a year..does it? But we definitely have congested terminals 365 days a year. LHR has much higher traffic and manages only with 2 runways. With the limited air field space i still think a 2 runway system with a midfield terminal like LHR is the best long term remedy for SEA (which probably is a far fetched dream and won't happen.).
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Tue May 30, 2017 10:50 pm

flybynight wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
masgniw wrote:

Extreme? Since you didn't care to source or qualify your "over the top" claim, here are some actual figures on the rather minimal-to-modest, voter-approved increases:

Car tab (MVET) -----1.1% ($110 annually for each $10,000 of vehicle valuation)
Sales & Use Tax ----1.4% ($0.14 on a $10 taxable purchase)
Property Tax -------$0.25 annually per $1,000 of assessed valuation ($100 annually on a $400,000 house)
Rental car sales -----0.8 percent ($0.80 on a $100 car rental)



Today I learned that transportation is a liberal cause. :roll: :roll: Don't bring partisan politics into this.


Again, I think light rail to the airport is wonderful, but it isn't cheap. Per household for our region is close to $700 per year in taxes and fees in support of ST. I live in Maple Valley - pretty rural - and we pay almost $5000/year just in property taxes. Then you add in the fact that many municipalities are close to or over 10% in sales tax and it just makes it worse.

I also am frustrated that we've had politicians say point blank "no more freeway lanes" when we have freeways like HWY 167 that is STILL only 2 lanes each way for much of it's distance. When you have only two freeways connecting King and Pierce counties, and one of them is just two lanes each way, of course you're going to have traffic. Add in my area - Maple Valley - and we have essentially two main corridors to get to the urban areas, Kent Kangley and Maple Valley Highway, both of which are just one lane each way out of Maple Valley with heavy congestion and no prospects for having two lanes each way for the distance. Buses sit in traffic on Kent Kangley, and we need those buses in order to get to the Sounder or Link. It just doesn't make sense.

I am over it though. We've lived here our entire lives, but we're done. We are leaving the state and looking forward to a lower cost of living elsewhere.


You know what Seattle truly needs? A real bypass freeway. One that goes way East and connects back to I-5 north of Marysville.
If you could take he trucks and other traffic heading to/from Vancouver and to/from CA and OR to truly bypass Seattle and Belleuve it would make a huge difference. Right now I5 goes straight through downtown Seattle (how freaking dumb!) and 405 is not any better going straight through Bellevue.
Combine that with the light rail and traffic in the Puget Sound would quickly become manageable. Right now it is a joke. Adding lightrail to Bellevue is not going to help when they are going to reduce one express lane across the I90 floating bridge.
I am all for lightrail and public transportation, but a good road system for cars and trucks is needed too.
Western WA get your thumb out of your butt and build a new highway. Plenty of room on the eastside. Hell expand Highway 18 north all the way to Marysville or even Mt Vernon. Toll it if you have too. I don't get why in 2017 it has become impossible to build new roads. What has happened to America!!!


There have been proposals for decades for such a freeway:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interst ... Washington)

Suffice it to say, we're running out of time to even consider such a thing. As the population booms, the land is becoming more developed and it will take many years to get such a proposal even through the environmental phase.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2213
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Wed May 31, 2017 4:46 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
flybynight wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:

Again, I think light rail to the airport is wonderful, but it isn't cheap. Per household for our region is close to $700 per year in taxes and fees in support of ST. I live in Maple Valley - pretty rural - and we pay almost $5000/year just in property taxes. Then you add in the fact that many municipalities are close to or over 10% in sales tax and it just makes it worse.

I also am frustrated that we've had politicians say point blank "no more freeway lanes" when we have freeways like HWY 167 that is STILL only 2 lanes each way for much of it's distance. When you have only two freeways connecting King and Pierce counties, and one of them is just two lanes each way, of course you're going to have traffic. Add in my area - Maple Valley - and we have essentially two main corridors to get to the urban areas, Kent Kangley and Maple Valley Highway, both of which are just one lane each way out of Maple Valley with heavy congestion and no prospects for having two lanes each way for the distance. Buses sit in traffic on Kent Kangley, and we need those buses in order to get to the Sounder or Link. It just doesn't make sense.

I am over it though. We've lived here our entire lives, but we're done. We are leaving the state and looking forward to a lower cost of living elsewhere.


You know what Seattle truly needs? A real bypass freeway. One that goes way East and connects back to I-5 north of Marysville.
If you could take he trucks and other traffic heading to/from Vancouver and to/from CA and OR to truly bypass Seattle and Belleuve it would make a huge difference. Right now I5 goes straight through downtown Seattle (how freaking dumb!) and 405 is not any better going straight through Bellevue.
Combine that with the light rail and traffic in the Puget Sound would quickly become manageable. Right now it is a joke. Adding lightrail to Bellevue is not going to help when they are going to reduce one express lane across the I90 floating bridge.
I am all for lightrail and public transportation, but a good road system for cars and trucks is needed too.
Western WA get your thumb out of your butt and build a new highway. Plenty of room on the eastside. Hell expand Highway 18 north all the way to Marysville or even Mt Vernon. Toll it if you have too. I don't get why in 2017 it has become impossible to build new roads. What has happened to America!!!


There have been proposals for decades for such a freeway:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interst ... Washington)

Suffice it to say, we're running out of time to even consider such a thing. As the population booms, the land is becoming more developed and it will take many years to get such a proposal even through the environmental phase.


That highway will never get built. What they need to do is make downtown autonomous-only by 2020 or have a congestion charge, then put dynamic tolls on the rest of the freeways to keep it moving the way Singapore does. More roads will just get clogged up.

https://medium.com/@mitchturck/i-find-y ... f249e9e623
https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traf ... ed-demand/
 
masgniw
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:14 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Wed May 31, 2017 4:36 pm

LH707330 wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
flybynight wrote:

You know what Seattle truly needs? A real bypass freeway. One that goes way East and connects back to I-5 north of Marysville.
If you could take he trucks and other traffic heading to/from Vancouver and to/from CA and OR to truly bypass Seattle and Belleuve it would make a huge difference. Right now I5 goes straight through downtown Seattle (how freaking dumb!) and 405 is not any better going straight through Bellevue.
Combine that with the light rail and traffic in the Puget Sound would quickly become manageable. Right now it is a joke. Adding lightrail to Bellevue is not going to help when they are going to reduce one express lane across the I90 floating bridge.
I am all for lightrail and public transportation, but a good road system for cars and trucks is needed too.
Western WA get your thumb out of your butt and build a new highway. Plenty of room on the eastside. Hell expand Highway 18 north all the way to Marysville or even Mt Vernon. Toll it if you have too. I don't get why in 2017 it has become impossible to build new roads. What has happened to America!!!


There have been proposals for decades for such a freeway:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interst ... Washington)

Suffice it to say, we're running out of time to even consider such a thing. As the population booms, the land is becoming more developed and it will take many years to get such a proposal even through the environmental phase.


That highway will never get built. What they need to do is make downtown autonomous-only by 2020 or have a congestion charge, then put dynamic tolls on the rest of the freeways to keep it moving the way Singapore does. More roads will just get clogged up.

https://medium.com/@mitchturck/i-find-y ... f249e9e623
https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traf ... ed-demand/


:checkmark: :checkmark:

"In 1998, the Washington State Legislature ordered a $500,000 study to investigate the benefits of extending SR 18 north to Everett through the Snoqualmie Valley.[2][3] The plan was dropped as the study found that on average only five minutes would be saved over current routes."

That's all you need to know. It's a huge expenditure for 5 minutes of time savings. All it does is encourage more driving and more sprawl. It's time to be more economical with the existing infrastructure like very wisely pointed out.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:02 am

Ya, I'm at a loss. The region is growing by leaps and bounds and the solution is to toll the crap out of people rather than add capacity? If you don't want people to drive more, how are they going to get where they're going? Decades of "We will not give you any more lanes or roads unless you approve this multi-billion dollar light rail system." Well, here we are.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1072
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Thu Jun 01, 2017 2:28 am

masgniw wrote:
"In 1998, the Washington State Legislature ordered a $500,000 study to investigate the benefits of extending SR 18 north to Everett through the Snoqualmie Valley.[2][3] The plan was dropped as the study found that on average only five minutes would be saved over current routes."

That's all you need to know. It's a huge expenditure for 5 minutes of time savings. All it does is encourage more driving and more sprawl. It's time to be more economical with the existing infrastructure like very wisely pointed out.


That was 3/4+ million metro area residents ago, at growth rates above what were expected 20 or even 10 years ago, and my understanding is the largest proportion of those new residents have moved into the area I-605 would have bypassed.

I do know for a fact that I-405 traffic has gotten noticeably worse just in the last 5-6 years I've been in my current location. Non-commuter traffic being able to bypass a major part of I-405, including the messy I-5/I-405 and I-405/SR-169 interchanges would benefit both the bypass users and commuters alike.

But since such a bypass would only be the preferred route to SEA itself for a relatively small fraction of the region's population, this is only borderline on topic.
 
masgniw
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:14 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Thu Jun 01, 2017 3:15 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Ya, I'm at a loss. The region is growing by leaps and bounds and the solution is to toll the crap out of people rather than add capacity? If you don't want people to drive more, how are they going to get where they're going? Decades of "We will not give you any more lanes or roads unless you approve this multi-billion dollar light rail system." Well, here we are.


I'd deeply recommend you read the Medium article that was posted (or any article) on induced demand. It's the exact reason that just adding lanes won't fix a thing. It's not an intuitive thought, and I understand that. But the principle is backed by empiricism and its examples are plentiful. For example, in LA, they spent $1.1 and 5 years to widen the 405. Guess how many minutes it shaved commuted times. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

http://www.laweekly.com/news/11-billion ... il-5415772

Seattle needs efficiency, not capacity.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1072
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:19 am

masgniw wrote:
I'd deeply recommend you read the Medium article that was posted (or any article) on induced demand. It's the exact reason that just adding lanes won't fix a thing. It's not an intuitive thought, and I understand that. But the principle is backed by empiricism and its examples are plentiful. For example, in LA, they spent $1.1 and 5 years to widen the 405. Guess how many minutes it shaved commuted times. Zilch. Zero. Nada.


Inherent to the induced demand theory is the recognition that more people are actually being moved by the road system.
 
AMollenhauer9
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:44 am

Has anyone seen a mock up of the new gates to the north of the current terminal? The Port of Seattle says they plan to add 35 gates.


https://www.portseattle.org/Business/Construction-Projects/Airport-Projects/Pages/airport-master-plan.aspx
 
masgniw
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:14 pm

Re: SEA...those upgrades are really needed

Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:20 am

iamlucky13 wrote:
masgniw wrote:
I'd deeply recommend you read the Medium article that was posted (or any article) on induced demand. It's the exact reason that just adding lanes won't fix a thing. It's not an intuitive thought, and I understand that. But the principle is backed by empiricism and its examples are plentiful. For example, in LA, they spent $1.1 and 5 years to widen the 405. Guess how many minutes it shaved commuted times. Zilch. Zero. Nada.


Inherent to the induced demand theory is the recognition that more people are actually being moved by the road system.


Oh yes, certainly. I agree. But keep in mind the seed of this discussion was traffic, not volume. If (let's say) 25% more people are able to move at the same snail's pace, does that truly fix anything with regards to congestion and travel times?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos