Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2017 [1].

Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel

[edit]
Nominator(s): SounderBruce 02:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When waiting for the train in Seattle, you may find yourself heading underground and having to wait for buses that pull up at the very same platform (abutted by lovely pieces of art and architecture). This is a rather unique arrangement in the United States, only Pittsburgh does something similar (but without any stations), so the transit tunnel is treasured as an odd piece of our transportation system. It carries tens of thousands of train and bus commuters each day and forms the backbone of the regional train and bus network. This article has been the product of a few years of on-and-off writing, so hopefully it's as cohesive and consistent as I think it is. SounderBruce 02:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: This article is being nominated as part of the ongoing WikiCup competition. SounderBruce 02:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry this is a bit OT for this page, but is this really unique? I seem to recall something similar if not identical in Boston (trams and metros at a minimumn), and there are several stations like this here in Toronto. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: The Seattle tunnel is entirely unique because trains and buses share the same platforms and tracks/road in the tunnel. The Boston Silver Line tunnel is entirely bus-only, and I'm not sure if I've ever seen a similar situation in Toronto (granted, I've never visited either city and am going off information gleaned from the web). SounderBruce 02:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This TTCs page shows the layout of St. Clair West. As you can see, busses and trams run on the same underground level, and they definitely run over the same tracks. This image shows a bus leaving the platform, while driving on the rails. This one shows a tram on the same ramp. At the bottom of the ramp the rails make a 90-degree left turn, run around a peninsular-shaped platform with stops along it. The trams and busses have alternate stops along the platform and the track is doubled to allow streetcars to bypass stalled ones. Similar situations exist at Union where the trams along Queen's Quay also alternate with busses on occasion. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Seattle tunnel is somewhat different from your Toronto example, but it is still quite fascinating, so thanks for sharing. In the Seattle tunnel, buses and trains share the same raised platform, which allows for level boarding for both low-floor buses and low-floor light rail vehicles; since the buses aren't quite made for this kind of setup, the mirrors stick out at head level and have to have strobe lights attached so people aren't hit. The tunnel is also operated differently (I assume), with a central control center and signals that prevent buses and trains from getting too close to each other when traveling in the same direction; it's not uncommon to see buses and trains stopped in the tunnel approaching a station, waiting for the platform to clear. The tunnel has also been the driver of two unique bus technologies: dual-mode buses that switched to electric overhead wires back when it opened in 1990 (since converted to normal trolleybuses and retired); and hybrid electric buses that switch to electric batteries when operating in the tunnel, which lacks ventilation for diesel buses. SounderBruce 23:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Toronto buses are also hybrids on a route that formerly had trolley busses (briefly), the trams and buses stop at the same raised platform to allow direct low-floor entry (low-floor trams arrived in the last couple of years), and there is a control booth on the platform controlling signals at the bottom of the ramp that often lead to backups of buses and trams on the ramps. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Seems like there is good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first image shows the actual tunnel tubes, which I deem important enough for the infobox. The tunnel's portals (another option for the infobox image) are quite hard to photograph due to security and lighting. SounderBruce 14:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look - mostly ok so far...

Metro unveiled its tentative plans for the bus tunnel in January 1984 - I know what you mean but tentative strikes me as an odd word..."initial" , "preliminary" fit better methinks.
Done.
A minor scandal involving the bus tunnel project emerged in late 1988 Eddie Rye Jr. of the Black Contractors Coalition notified Metro that the granite to be received by Metro for the stations had been sourced from South Africa. - are we missing a period or comma from the middle of this?
Looks like a few sentences were misplaced during an earlier edit. I've restored and tweaked them for better flow. SounderBruce 00:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looking good on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "served by buses from King County Metro and Sound Transit Express" I did a double take on this as it sounded at first like the names of terminuses, not operators. I suggest changing "from" to "operated by". I also suggest explaining that they are public authorities, not private companies. (I don't know about the US situation, but in Britain almost all public transport is now run by private companies.)
    • In the United States, the vast majority of public buses are run by public authorities, so I don't think this warrants a separate explanation.
  • "Soft openings of the five tunnel stations" What are soft openings?
    • Added a link and synonym (public previews)
  • "The roadway was lowered to 8 inches" lowered by 8 inches?
    • Fixed.
  • No change needed, but a lot of money must have been spent making several major changes to the system in a short period.
    • Despite that, it was cheaper than building a new tunnel for $1 billion. Our light rail system comes out to about $220 million per mile (which is almost as expensive as a proper subway).
  • "has been on hold since 2009." This should be as of a specified date, as it may become out of date in the future.
    • Decided to toss that sentence out, as it is covered in the station article...and the project has been cancelled entirely and handed to a new developer and architect.
  • This is a very good article, but far too detailed in places. Running schedules are liable to frequent change, and belong on the companies' websites, not in a Wikipedia article. Minor glitches in construction are not relevant in a general article about the tunnel. I would suggest you consider hiving off the construction to a separate article with a briefer summary here. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The running schedules for light rail don't change often (only three times over the last 8 years) and are well-documented. I think they warrant inclusion as a pretty basic measure of tunnel service levels (which can be compared to the theoretical capacity listed). As for the construction, I'm hesitant to split or reduce some of the details because I feel the balance of the history section is ideal as it is (with construction and operations being the same length, roughly). SounderBruce 23:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As I commented above, I think this article is too detailed in some parts. I do not think hours of operation or small power outages of a few hours during construction belong in an encyclopedia article, but these are minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness Comments by Finetooth

[edit]
Really interesting article. The prose is generally excellent, but I have a few suggestions and questions, as noted below.
General
  • I don't think so many terms need to be linked more than once in the main text. (I unlinked the only two duplicates that I found in the lede.) WP:DUPLINK has guidelines and exceptions.
  • Removed almost every duplicate link. A few were repeated in the history section to help clarify things (mostly bus-related terms).
  • I like the clickable map in the upper right-hand corner. I didn't know something like this was possible.
  • The magic of KMLs! They work well for road articles, but I think they have potential in other transportation fields.
Lede
  • ¶1 "...shared with Sound Transit, who signed..." – "which" rather than "who"?
  • Rewrote the sentence to remove some of the detail.
  • ¶2 "...date back to the 1910s and 1920s..." – Remove "back", which doesn't add anything?
  • Dropped the "back" and rewrote the sentence a bit.
  • ¶3 "The downtown transit tunnel is planned to lose its bus service during the permanent closure of Convention Place station in 2019; from that point on, the tunnel will be used only by light rail trains." – Recast to replace the passive "is planned to lose"? Suggestion: "Plans call for the downtown transit tunnel to lose its bus service...".
  • Reworded.
Routes and stations
  • ¶1 "There is a total of 11 wheelchair-accessible elevators to the tunnel stations, as mandated by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the United States Department of Transportation." – This sentence stopped me both times through. How about "A total of 11 wheelchair-accessible elevators, mandated by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the United States Department of Transportation, connect the tunnel stations to the surface."?
  • Dropped the part about the ADA and USDOT, since the former did not take effect until after the tunnel opened.
Service
  • ¶2 I may just not be seeing it, but it seems that the three bays are A, C, and D. Why no Bay B?
  • Bay B was removed in 2016, when Route 255 was moved to Bay A. It is still noted on maps, but I can't find a reference to it actually being deleted. (Also, there's still a pole on the platform where it used to be)
How do you know it was removed in 2016? Personal observation, I'm guessing. If you can find a reliable source for this, it would be worth adding. Finetooth (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personal observation. There is a source showing Route 255 being moved to Bay A, but nothing discussing Bay B being eliminated.
Operations
  • ¶1 "subsequent loss of motor vehicle excise tax revenue" - Hyphenate "motor-vehicle"?
  • Most documents and news sources omit the hyphen when referring to the tax.
OK. Finetooth (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous subway proposals
  • ¶1 "stations on the line would have additional entrances" – "were to have" rather than "would have" since it didn't actually happen.
  • Fixed.
  • ¶2 "The line would be connected to surface and elevated lines..." – "was to" rather than "would be"?
  • Fixed.
  • ¶3 "instead allocated to Atlanta, Georgia, to build their rapid transit system." – A city is an "it". So "its" rather than "their"?
  • Fixed.
Bus tunnel proposal and approval
  • ¶1 "It was suggested by Metro officials and engineering consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff as part of a series of proposals from a task force on studying solutions to downtown traffic were unable to find suitable alternatives." – I'm not sure what this sentence means.
  • Rewritten, hopefully in a clearer way.
  • ¶1 "The proposal gained further support from Metro Transit in their long-term "Metro 1990" plan, adopted in 1981, in which a transit mall or tunnel under 3rd Avenue carrying buses to be converted for a light rail system was suggested by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG)." – Split and then flip the passive voice at the end? Suggestion: "The proposal gained further support from Metro Transit in its long-term "Metro 1990" plan, adopted in 1981. It incorporated the suggestion of the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) that a transit mall or tunnel under 3rd Avenue should carry buses that could be converted for a light rail system." Or something like that.
  • Rewritten to split Metro from PSCOG.
  • ¶2 "The Metro Transit Committee debated the inclusion of the bus tunnel in the environmental impact assessment of the Downtown Seattle Transit Project well into 1983, with Seattle members opposing the tunnel in favor of a transit mall and suburban members supporting a bus tunnel that would be converted to a light rail system connecting Seattle to Snohomish County proposed by the PSCOG." – This one is confusing too. I think the sentence would be more clear if split into two sentences, but even then I'm not sure what "proposed by the PSCOG" is modifying.
  • Moved the light rail proposal up to the last paragraph and slimmed this sentence down. Should be a bit clearer.
Construction
  • ¶4 "were declared "nearly complete", with only minor work left to complete." – Rephrase slightly to avoid repeating "complete". Maybe "only minor work still undone".
  • Done.
  • ¶4 "Tunnel construction was declared complete..." – Maybe substitute "finished" for "complete" here to further reduce the repetition of "complete" in this paragraph.
  • Done.
South African granite scandal
  • ¶1 "Metro determined that replacing the 24,000 square feet (2,200 m2) of granite would cost $500,000 and delay both stations, but would not affect the overall budget or anticipated beginning of service in 1990." – If it cost a half-million dollars, how could it not affect the overall budget?
  • Most projects of this scale have contingency funds (or float) that cover unexpected circumstances. I'll try to fit that note in.
  • ¶1 Was the granite removed? If so, where did it go?
  • The granite was never put into the stations, so no removal was necessary. As far as I can tell, from asking around Metro's archives department and asking people involved, no one really knows where the granite went.
Ah. I think it would be good to add that it had not been installed, if you have an RS for that. Since the quantity of granite is listed in the article as square footage, I assumed that was the total surface area of the installed benches and walls, which then had to be uninstalled, making everyone unhappy.
According to one of the news articles at the tail end of the scandal, the granite was never delivered and returned to the Italian supplier. Added that to the article. SounderBruce 23:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Finetooth (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶2 "Metro Director Alan Gibbs confirmed that the granite was quarried in South Africa during a press conference on January 25, 1989, while preparing an investigative report for the Metro Council Transit Committee scheduled for February 2." – Maybe recast to avoid suggesting that the granite was quarried during a press conference?
  • Rewritten.
All looks fine with the possible exception of my remaining question about the granite scandal. It may be that there is no RS to answer this question and no RS to say when Bay B disappeared, but if you find sources, please add them. This is a fine article, and I'm switching to support on prose and comprehensiveness, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. It can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: The source review has been completed. I think this fulfills the last of the requirements. SounderBruce 01:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sauce review by Cas Liber

[edit]
  • Formatting consistent.
  • Earwigs copyvio clear
  • FN 64 used once, faithful to source.
  • FN 65 used once, faithful to source.
  • FN 141 used once, faithful to source.

Sources look reliable, good to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

[edit]

I won't hold up promotion over it but please check and rationalise where feasible the duplinks in the article; you can use this script to highlight -- it boxes the initial instances in green and the subsequent/duplicate instances in red. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Downtown_Seattle_Transit_Tunnel/archive1&oldid=798098542"