Iirc, a Immersed Tube Tunnel was floated as an idea to replace the West Seattle Bridge when it developed structural damage back in 2020.
It was discarded as an idea for cars, but: I was wondering if it would make sense for trains.
Has anything like this been considered?
Additional Op-Ed: https://www.westsideseattle.com/robinson-papers/2020/05/30/why-not-duwamish-tunnel-20-questions-answered
Since this seems to be a criterion for breaking ground, what does this mean?
Does it really mess up the ADA waiting area access?
Is something like that possible?
I rode one the other day and it seemed... dangerous?
After seeing how the lists of "countries run by horrible people" and countries with untapped, proven oil reserves line up, I was thinking, what if we (more or less, the United States) internalized costs and allocated the gas tax to "defense"?
How would this affect the economy?
Currently, the state that I am living in is suing a betting service, claiming that the latter is violating a state law and causing harm to residents. In the past, it has sued practices as well, in which those affected were non-government entities.
What if the state, itself, had to be the injured party in order to bring forth litigation? For example, if a factory opened up next to city hall and, illegally, dumped on municipal grounds, then the state could sue for damages.
Otherwise, it would be the role of the state to set laws and operate courts.
How would a structure like this impact society?
They add nothing to society. I can't express excitement about quantities anymore.
Maybe we give them a really long factorial to distract them.
2346785357890764211346789086543213468907898777647766!
I feel like this would make sense.
The route mostly follows freeway ROW, anyway. I think that ridership will be modest, given that it misses Seattle.
I think that it makes sense to be implemented as BRT until funding is secured.
I sincerely believe this.
I think that daylight savings time is a trick to convince people to wake up an hour earlier 2/3rds of the year to increase workforce output.
I don't know if it started as that, but I feel that it has been kept in place in part to preserve this outcome.
Think about it.
The United States was at war with the Empire of Japan at the time. They had every incentive to want to cripple the latter's industrial base.
There was also the threat of the re-entry of the Soviet Union into the conflict, which would have impacted the terms of any potential surrender that the US was seeking at that time.
I'm not saying that the United States military caused the tragedies directly, per se. But the alignment of interests is suspicious.
And not by line?