Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Washington > Seattle area
 [Register]
Seattle area Seattle and King County Suburbs
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-15-2013, 02:47 PM
 
Location: San Diego, California Republic
16,588 posts, read 27,483,808 times
Reputation: 9059

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Puget Sound is too deep to tunnel under.
This too. I think something would have been done already if it were possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-15-2013, 03:09 PM
 
Location: PNW
2,011 posts, read 3,477,339 times
Reputation: 1403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo View Post
This too. I think something would have been done already if it were possible.
I not sure if it really is too deep, someone ahould double check that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 06:25 PM
 
Location: PNW
2,011 posts, read 3,477,339 times
Reputation: 1403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Puget Sound is too deep to tunnel under.
To answer my question: The Seikan Tunnel in Japan is actually over 700 feet before the surface at its deepest points, so it's completely possible especially in the areas proposed. I think the advantage a tunnel under the sound would have would be the face that it would only be 3 miles long while those other tunnel span 30 plus miles, which limits them to Rail only tunnels. An automobile tunnel the sound would make engineering history, plus it probably would actually be easier and cheaper then building a bridge. But Depth of Water is not an issue, it's all in the design. Also I dont thing the area from burien/normandy park to Vashon exceeds 400 ft in depth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 07:04 PM
 
1,980 posts, read 3,785,302 times
Reputation: 1600
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevanXL View Post
To answer my question: The Seikan Tunnel in Japan is actually over 700 feet before the surface at its deepest points, so it's completely possible especially in the areas proposed. I think the advantage a tunnel under the sound would have would be the face that it would only be 3 miles long while those other tunnel span 30 plus miles, which limits them to Rail only tunnels. An automobile tunnel the sound would make engineering history, plus it probably would actually be easier and cheaper then building a bridge. But Depth of Water is not an issue, it's all in the design. Also I dont thing the area from burien/normandy park to Vashon exceeds 400 ft in depth.
It's 600 feet just to the muck at the shallowest "deep" point. The tunnel itself would have to be deeper.

A cheaper option than the tunnel would be to invent the zero gravity car.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 07:44 PM
 
Location: PNW
2,011 posts, read 3,477,339 times
Reputation: 1403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
It's 600 feet just to the muck at the shallowest "deep" point. The tunnel itself would have to be deeper.

A cheaper option than the tunnel would be to invent the zero gravity car.
Average depth is 400 feet and there is shallow areas in the sound just not north of seattle. I doubt it would be 600 feet deep. Even then there is many different options for bridges even if you deem that area "too deep to build". The chesapeake bay bridge is a perfect example of innovation in areas that are difficult to build around. You just can't think so clise minded. Thats the reason why we still have light rail in a very limited area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 07:54 PM
 
Location: San Diego, California Republic
16,588 posts, read 27,483,808 times
Reputation: 9059
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevanXL View Post
Average depth is 400 feet and there is shallow areas in the sound just not north of seattle. I doubt it would be 600 feet deep. Even then there is many different options for bridges even if you deem that area "too deep to build". The chesapeake bay bridge is a perfect example of innovation in areas that are difficult to build around. You just can't think so clise minded. Thats the reason why we still have light rail in a very limited area.
Quote:
Its average depth is 205 feet (62 m) and its maximum depth, off Point Jefferson between Indianola and Kingston, is 930 feet (280 m). The depth of the main basin, between the southern tip of Whidbey Island and Tacoma, Washington, is approximately 600 feet (180 m).[1]
Puget Sound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 08:04 PM
 
Location: PNW
2,011 posts, read 3,477,339 times
Reputation: 1403
Ok now i have an answer for that question. The point is unless someone here is a stuctural engineer i dont think they can give a definitely answer wether not it is possible to do it. Even with that there is other alternative methods for something to be built. The pot was more about the benefits of the bridge, not a question of the depth of the water. When there is a problem there is an innovator!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 08:15 PM
 
7,743 posts, read 15,919,329 times
Reputation: 10457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo View Post
This too. I think something would have been done already if it were possible.
It isn't a matter whether its possible-- other areas like Japan, Virginia Beach, SF show that it could be done. But this is Seattle... it makes sense they would be late on this subject as well. After all, they did catch onto the light rail pretty late.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 08:35 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
3,721 posts, read 7,853,507 times
Reputation: 2030
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz View Post
Just build a huge bridge or tunnel, enforce "high density only" zoning codes in Vashon, and proceed to Manhattanize the island. It's the only way to please the urban enthusiasts.
That would completely destroy the charm and slow pace of the island. Things are fine the way they are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2013, 09:29 PM
 
Location: PNW
2,011 posts, read 3,477,339 times
Reputation: 1403
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjg5 View Post
That would completely destroy the charm and slow pace of the island. Things are fine the way they are.
I agree with that. A small population boom on waterfront properties and upscale neighborhood (limited to a small area) and construct a nice pleasant marina for tourism, could do great things for the community!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2022 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Washington > Seattle area
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top