Even if well-intentioned (which they often aren’t), these are not the right people to the be the “deciders” for all of the most critical decisions ST faces.īut they needed their money. The board representation from these areas don’t care about or even understand transit. Nope, it had to be sold as a project that would equally benefit everyone across the urban part of the region (i.e. one that first and foremost serves the core in an efficient way and ventures into some some suburbs smartly). The thing is, this is the way the model had to be – voters across the region were never going to fund an agency of Seattle-centric planners and engineers to build a Montreal-style subway system (i.e. Within those constraints there are things ST (and other agency) planners can do to improve certain aspects, but mostly it’s just trimming around the edges. In the end, each board member is most concerned about making their constituents happy, not about building a great user-oriented system. These decisions are politically driven by a regional body filled with elected officials. The planners are at the mercy and whim of the ST board. As someone who works in the transportation industry in the Puget Sound region, I can verify that this is 100% correct. Regarding Midtown, one interesting idea that’s stuck with me is, given the steepness of the hill, a street-level entrance on 2nd & Madison, with a long pedestrian tunnel, could connect directly to a 5th & Madison station that would otherwise be only accessible by elevator. Or that a deep station in the CID would require an even deeper Midtown one. You can see that a “shallow” station on 4th in the CD would be deeper than Capitol Hill, for example. In addition to physical considerations like existing terrain, soil properties, and existing underground infrastructure or building foundations, geometric design constraints imposed by the depths of adjacent stations also may determine how deep underground a station must be built.Ĭlick through for a visual comparison of the station depths. There are several factors in the Downtown segment that influence the depths of the tunnel stations. PSS can help provide sustainable solutions to the global issues that we face: food, water, and energy security and climate change.Sound transit has a blog post up that pairs well with our recent discussions of transfers and deep stations:Īs people have begun to study the recently published Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), some have wondered about the depths of the stations and what the rider experience would be like to access the platforms and transfer between lines. We hope that this review raises awareness about PSS to further its research and development and to encourage the use of proximal soil sensors in different applications. Proximal soil sensors allow rapid and inexpensive collection of precise, quantitative, high-resolution data, which can be used to better understand soil spatial and temporal variability. PSS provides soil scientists with an effective approach to learn more about soils. Finally, we provide a short list of general considerations for future work and suggest that we need research and development to: (i) improve soil sampling designs for PSS, (ii) define the most suitable technique or combination of techniques for measuring key soil properties, (iii) better understand the interactions between soil and sensor signals, (iv) derive theoretical sensor calibrations, (v) understand the basis for local versus global sensor calibrations, (vi) improve signal processing, analysis, and reconstruction techniques, (vii) derive and improve methods for sensor data fusion, and (viii) explore the many and varied soil, agricultural, and environmental applications where proximal soil sensors could be used. Our discussion focuses on the development of PSS over the past 30 years and on its current state. We also indicate the developmental stage of technologies for PSS and the current approximate cost of commercial sensors. Because soil properties can be measured with different proximal soil sensors, we provide examples of the alternative techniques that are available for measuring soil properties. Using the range of frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum as a framework, we describe a large range of technologies that can be used for PSS, including electrochemical and mechanical sensors, telemetry, geographic positioning and elevation, multisensor platforms, and core measuring and down-borehole sensors.
We first define PSS and discuss the sampling dilemma. Our intent is for it to be a source of up-to-date information on PSS, the technologies that are currently available and their use for measuring soil properties.
This chapter reviews proximal soil sensing (PSS).
0 kommentar(er)
