 |
Re: 501 crash info.-Bridge Realignment? Thanks, I thought I'd heard or seen that....
Author: Steve Carter
Date: 12-23-2017 - 19:27
BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I too, seem to recall reading somewhere that in
> the future, this segment of I-5 would be widened
> and modernized, like is being completed north of
> here on I-5, and that then this bridge complex
> would then be rebuilt, and this curve realigned.
>
>
> Which made perfect sense to me, as someone who has
> planned and identified funding flows for future
> major highway and transit projects like these for
> part of my varied career. But, I was told that I
> was wrong about that.
>
> So, I guess I may have been right, after all.....
>
> All of my noisiest critics, who appear never to
> have done any of that kind of work for a living,
> also tell me, that it is really all about more
> trains, and that saving time (and taxpayer money)
> with faster speeds is not (should not?) be a
> purpose of the project....
>
> So perhaps, I'm not wrong about that goal
> either.....
Your friends would be correct on the point of more trains, at least in how the final plan played out. More trains was the goal and could only be reached my moving all of the passenger trains off the Pt Defiance and lessening congestion on the single track Nelson Bennett tunnel. BNSF agreed to the the two additional trains (4 round trips), only if that happened. The first time savings (from the non-new bridge over I-5 plan) was only 6 minutes. I might add that 501, because of being late 9 minutes out of Seattle arrived in to Tacoma almost 30 minutes late. 6:45 scheduled 7:13 actual. Many of those additional 19 minutes were spent waiting for Sounder trains to clear the north end of the Lakewood sub, so 501 could reach the Tacoma Dome Station. 10 minutes savings went poof! Had they been on the Pt Defiance line, there would have been no conflict with the Sounders in order for 501 one to reach a Tacoma Passenger station. Which of course is a moot point because there would have been no 501 at that time, as it is one of the "new" trains.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I too, seem to recall reading somewhere that in
> the future, this segment of I-5 would be widened
> and modernized, like is being completed north of
> here on I-5, and that then this bridge complex
> would then be rebuilt, and this curve realigned.
>
>
> Which made perfect sense to me, as someone who has
> planned and identified funding flows for future
> major highway and transit projects like these for
> part of my varied career. But, I was told that I
> was wrong about that.
>
> So, I guess I may have been right, after all.....
>
> All of my noisiest critics, who appear never to
> have done any of that kind of work for a living,
> also tell me, that it is really all about more
> trains, and that saving time (and taxpayer money)
> with faster speeds is not (should not?) be a
> purpose of the project....
>
> So perhaps, I'm not wrong about that goal
> either.....
Your friends would be correct on the point of more trains, at least in how the final plan played out. More trains was the goal and could only be reached my moving all of the passenger trains off the Pt Defiance and lessening congestion on the single track Nelson Bennett tunnel. BNSF agreed to the the two additional trains (4 round trips), only if that happened. The first time savings (from the non-new bridge over I-5 plan) was only 6 minutes. I might add that 501, because of being late 9 minutes out of Seattle arrived in to Tacoma almost 30 minutes late. 6:45 scheduled 7:13 actual. Many of those additional 19 minutes were spent waiting for Sounder trains to clear the north end of the Lakewood sub, so 501 could reach the Tacoma Dome Station. 10 minutes savings went poof! Had they been on the Pt Defiance line, there would have been no conflict with the Sounders in order for 501 one to reach a Tacoma Passenger station. Which of course is a moot point because there would have been no 501 at that time, as it is one of the "new" trains.
