Personal tools

Argument: Seattle tunnel less disruptive than other options

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Glenn Pascall. "Is deep-bore tunnel best hope to replace viaduct?" Puget Sound Business Journal. December 30th, 2007: "Alan Dyke, managing director for the high-speed rail route between London and the English Channel, said a tunnel under London was chosen because disruption and environmental mitigation requirements of a surface route through the city would been excessive. [...] The Paris A86 beltway automobile tunnel holds a similar lesson. Jeff Hall is vice president of Cofiroute, a subsidiary of Vinci, one of the largest construction firms in the world and builder of A86. Hall said Paris went through alternatives -- surface roads, a cut-and-cover tunnel -- and rejected them due to a quality of life issue: Protection of the Parisian greenbelt. 'A deep-bore tunnel was the only way to do this while adding capacity.'"

"The case for the deep bore tunnel." Seattle Scape Blog: "What’s the price of several years of massive disruption with the aerial or shallow-cut alternatives? How many stores would fail, offices would move away, residents wouldn’t move in, and tourists wouldn’t come? (not to mention the effect of being next to another eyesore for another lifetime)"

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits