News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Washington

Started by jakeroot, May 21, 2016, 01:56:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

kkt

Quote from: jakeroot on January 31, 2017, 03:32:07 AM
Props to Bellevue for continuing the stripes all the way to the last possible moment (far left edge of the photo, notice that tiny white bit of paint -- today's road crews would give up after that second-to-left marking).

That's interesting.  I wonder if the crosswalk bulbs are newer than the painted crosswalk.


jakeroot

Another interesting find on the Eastside Heritage Center's website. A 1969 freeway/expressway plan for the Puget Sound region (not just Seattle). The plan was drawn up by Preuss Jorgansen Architects of Seattle, for the city of Bellevue (see this link). It would be cooler if it was drawn up by actual regional planners, but it's still a cool map.

One disclaimer before you read: this map very clearly shows lines that represent both freeways and expressways, but the map doesn't distinguish between the two, other than by having darker lines for recommended facilities. Now, the planned RH Thompson "Expressway" was a "freeway" by all accounts, so I'm not sure there's a distinguishable difference between the two anyway.

Some interesting notes:

* This is the first, and thus far only map that I've seen that actually shows a Highway 7 freeway running south from its current freeway terminus at S 38 St near Tacoma. This had apparently been the plan since the freeway junction between I-5 and the planned I-705 and Hwy 7 freeways was built in the mid-60s. I knew there had been some rumbling about the freeway being built all the way to at least the 512, but I had never seen any proof of it. If not for the S 38 St stub, this whole map could have been debunked as being some PE's fantasy plan that he drew in an afternoon. But seeing as that stub was built, it's fair to say that this map had some roots in reality.

* Some sort of Lakewood freeway was planned, which I have never heard of before. Looks like the southern terminus is near the I-5/Bridgeport Way junction, and the northern terminus is at the Hwy 16/Center St junction. It almost looks like Hwy 16 was meant to terminate at this interchange, and the Nalley Valley East/West freeway was to continue past that interchange, where it swooped south towards Lakewood. Perhaps that whole freeway could have become an even-numbered Tacoma Mall interstate bypass! I'm trying not to laugh here, but that's what it looks like to me. I can't find a higher res photo, unfortunately.

* A third, northern Lake Washington bridge was planned (as we all know), but there was planned to be an interchange after the 405 with some sort of Bellevue bypass, which originated way down south near Tukwila (where the 5 was apparently planned for a slightly different alignment). Weirdly, this freeway doesn't run all the way north, but if it had, it would have intersected some sort of Hwy 9 Everett bypass. Evidently, the Hwy 2 trestle's interchange with SR 204 was meant to be a full freeway interchange, where Hwy 204 became a freeway and intersected a Hwy 9 freeway.

* The layout of the planned freeways near the Port of Tacoma was wildly different from what was actually built. Hwy 18 was planned to continue through Federal Way, where it would swoop down into the Port of Tacoma, intersecting with Hwy 167's westerly leg (which intersected I-5 nowhere near where it's planned to today). At that point, it would cross over the Thea Foss waterway into downtown Tacoma.

* The 509's Seatac section was planned to parallel I-5 for much longer than it's planned to today, intersecting I-5 closer to 272nd, rather than just north of 516.

* There's a mysterious freeway jutting south from the 5/405 interchange near Lynnwood, that aims straight at the 522/Bothell freeway (a stub until a few years ago). I don't know anything about this.


Bruce

I believe this is part of the 1967 Puget Sound Council of Governments study on regional transportation (see here), whose map looks like this:


Bruce

Speaking of great resources, I stumbled across something from the Dept. from Archeaology and Historic Preservation that may be of interest: a guide to historic roads in the Puget Sound region (link here, huge PDF warning). Each profile in chapter 4 looks at individual state routes and some basic timeline entries using topographic maps and WSDOT data (mostly projects being approved) from the time. It also recommends a few highways be put on the National Register of Historic Places.

jakeroot

Quote from: Bruce on February 03, 2017, 09:43:16 PM
I believe this is part of the 1967 Puget Sound Council of Governments study on regional transportation (see here), whose map looks like this:

http://i.imgur.com/kdHxRuD.jpg

Wow! Great map, Bruce. Never seen that one before.

Interesting to see that the 167 and 18 were only proposed for their southern and western segments, respectively (and not budgeted). They seem to be the only orange lines on the map that were built. Nevermind that hundreds of miles of green routes that weren't.

By the way, unlike most folks, I don't think all these freeways would have destroyed our city. The fact is, today's Seattle developed around the type of activism that put an end to freeway building to begin with. If the activism hadn't worked, perhaps today's Seattle would be more conservative, and car-centric. Perhaps the city centers of our regions would be a lot smaller. Maybe Monroe would just be a sea of housing developments? Perhaps Southworth would be this bustling city? Who knows, but I do know that today's Seattle wouldn't exist, so we wouldn't know what we were missing.

Regardless, I think today's Seattle turned out very nicely, and I don't think I'd change it for anything.

Quote from: Bruce on February 03, 2017, 09:45:30 PM
Speaking of great resources, I stumbled across something from the Dept. from Archeaology and Historic Preservation that may be of interest: a guide to historic roads in the Puget Sound region (link here, huge PDF warning). Each profile in chapter 4 looks at individual state routes and some basic timeline entries using topographic maps and WSDOT data (mostly projects being approved) from the time. It also recommends a few highways be put on the National Register of Historic Places.

Nice find! I'll post back here once I read through it.

JasonOfORoads

#105
Quote from: jakeroot on February 03, 2017, 08:39:54 PM
* This is the first, and thus far only map that I've seen that actually shows a Highway 7 freeway running south from its current freeway terminus at S 38 St near Tacoma. This had apparently been the plan since the freeway junction between I-5 and the planned I-705 and Hwy 7 freeways was built in the mid-60s. I knew there had been some rumbling about the freeway being built all the way to at least the 512, but I had never seen any proof of it. If not for the S 38 St stub, this whole map could have been debunked as being some PE's fantasy plan that he drew in an afternoon. But seeing as that stub was built, it's fair to say that this map had some roots in reality.

There's also this grove of trees to the east of the current SR-7 interchange on land set aside for a cloverleaf with the SR-7 freeway, as shown in a 1977 Rand McNally Texaco map of Tacoma:



Unfortunately that map doesn't show a route between there and the northern stub.
Borderline addicted to roadgeeking since ~1989.

Bruce

Quote from: jakeroot on February 03, 2017, 10:04:16 PM
By the way, unlike most folks, I don't think all these freeways would have destroyed our city. The fact is, today's Seattle developed around the type of activism that put an end to freeway building to begin with. If the activism hadn't worked, perhaps today's Seattle would be more conservative, and car-centric. Perhaps the city centers of our regions would be a lot smaller. Maybe Monroe would just be a sea of housing developments? Perhaps Southworth would be this bustling city? Who knows, but I do know that today's Seattle wouldn't exist, so we wouldn't know what we were missing.

Regardless, I think today's Seattle turned out very nicely, and I don't think I'd change it for anything.

I wouldn't give our car-hostile Seattle for anything else. I disagree with your statement, as any one of these freeways would have ruined Seattle just by purely being there, not to mention the car-centric sprawl that would follow in a pre-GMA Washington. For example:

The RH Thomson Expressway would have permanently ruined MLK Way through the Rainier Valley and Central District, where decent housing options have allowed non-whites to settle before moving on to other areas of the region. Without that kind of nurturing landing pad (that isn't set against the roar of a freeway), Seattle would not have looked so attractive to some immigrants.

The freeway on SR 522 would have cut off the lakefront for a number of communities, which the highway still does today but is at least crossable and usable for bus service.

And opening up Kitsap County to that much Seattle-centric development would have ruined quite a bit more of the Sound. The striking difference in tree density between the two sides of the Sound is very noticeable on satellite images.

Maybe some of these freeways out in the rural areas would have done fine with GMA-like provisions that heavily restrict or outright ban development near them (and further limiting the number of developable-exits and such). But they won't really be needed going forward, since road capacity isn't a good investment for a region like ours.

Bruce

In non-car hostile news (or is it?), Mercer Island is losing its special, privileged access to the I-90 express lanes in June and won't be getting much of a replacement. Despite howling from Mercer Island, the FHWA ruled that it was illegal to begin with, so they should shut up and wait for their train to come.

jakeroot

Quote from: JasonOfORoads on February 04, 2017, 12:18:03 AM
There's also this grove of trees to the east of the current SR-7 interchange on land set aside for a cloverleaf with the SR-7 freeway, as shown in a 1977 Rand McNally Texaco map of Tacoma:

http://www.oroads.com/aaroads/wa-sr7-cloverleaf.jpg

Unfortunately that map doesn't show a route between there and the northern stub.

That's fantastic, Jason! Great image, and great reference there with the mysteriously diamond-shaped forested area. I drive that freeway damn near every day, and I never noticed that before. Granted, I'm only seeing what I see from the road, but I've viewed overhead satellite imagery of the area a great many times, and never noticed that before.

kkt

I've seen that patch of forest on Satellite View and wondered if it would be a workable route for a freeway.  Love visiting Mt. Rainier, hate the couple of miles of speed trap stop & go along either 161 or 7.

JasonOfORoads

Quote from: jakeroot on February 04, 2017, 01:24:13 AM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on February 04, 2017, 12:18:03 AM
There's also this grove of trees to the east of the current SR-7 interchange on land set aside for a cloverleaf with the SR-7 freeway, as shown in a 1977 Rand McNally Texaco map of Tacoma:

http://www.oroads.com/aaroads/wa-sr7-cloverleaf.jpg

Unfortunately that map doesn't show a route between there and the northern stub.

That's fantastic, Jason! Great image, and great reference there with the mysteriously diamond-shaped forested area. I drive that freeway damn near every day, and I never noticed that before. Granted, I'm only seeing what I see from the road, but I've viewed overhead satellite imagery of the area a great many times, and never noticed that before.

Thanks! I went to college in the area about a decade ago and would often explore old and current alignments. Had a nice amount of potato-quality photos of I-705, SR-16 before the second Narrows Bridge, the SR-7 stub, etc. before hard drive issues wiped them from existence (unless someone knows a cheap drive recovery service that can perform miracles). Fond roadgeeking memories for sure. However, I'm bummed that the old SR-7 sign on Pacific was recently removed. Another little bit of Washington roadgeek history bites the dust I suppose.
Borderline addicted to roadgeeking since ~1989.

JasonOfORoads

Quote from: kkt on February 04, 2017, 01:47:37 AM
I've seen that patch of forest on Satellite View and wondered if it would be a workable route for a freeway.

Maybe in the 1960s, but it looks too heavily developed now.
Borderline addicted to roadgeeking since ~1989.

Henry

Quote from: jakeroot on November 03, 2016, 06:26:38 PM
WSDOT is studying SR 162, which runs between Sumner and Orting, and ways to improve travel times and capacity, particularly in the event of volcano evacuation.

http://wsdot.wa.gov/planning/Studies/SR162Corridor.htm

My recommendation would be to bypass the current road with a new dual carriageway. There's plenty of open farmland surrounding the road. Build roundabouts at major crossing points. More free-flow, the better.
My guess is that Mt. St. Helens will erupt again like it did 37 years ago?
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

kkt

Quote from: Henry on February 06, 2017, 10:15:59 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 03, 2016, 06:26:38 PM
WSDOT is studying SR 162, which runs between Sumner and Orting, and ways to improve travel times and capacity, particularly in the event of volcano evacuation.

http://wsdot.wa.gov/planning/Studies/SR162Corridor.htm

My recommendation would be to bypass the current road with a new dual carriageway. There's plenty of open farmland surrounding the road. Build roundabouts at major crossing points. More free-flow, the better.
My guess is that Mt. St. Helens will erupt again like it did 37 years ago?

Or a hot vent opening underneath Mt. Rainier's glaciers.  If they melted suddenly it would cause a big flood and mudflow, making for a bad day for people in towns downstream.

jakeroot

Was reading the SR-99 Wikipedia page, and I came to the bit where it talks about the history. There's a reference to the RCW where 99 is defined. Check it out:

Quote from: RCW RCW 47.17.160
A state highway to be known as state route number 99 is established as follows:
- Beginning at a junction with state route number 18 in the vicinity of Federal Way, thence northerly by way of Midway, to a junction with state route 518 in Tukwila; also
- Beginning at a junction with state route number 599 in the vicinity of Tukwila, thence northerly by way of Seattle, Edmonds, and Lynnwood to a junction with state route number 5 in Everett:
--> PROVIDED, That until state route number 509 is constructed and opened to traffic on an anticipated ultimate alignment from a junction with state route number 705 in Tacoma via the Port of Tacoma industrial area to a junction with state route number 18 in the vicinity of Federal Way that portion of state route number 99 between state route number 5 at Fife and state route number 18 in the vicinity of Federal Way shall remain on the state highway system.

The last part is the interesting bit. I'm not aware of any plans to complete the 509 to Hwy 18 in Federal Way. I can see from the map several posts up that, back in the 1970s, that was in fact the plan, but I think that plan has long since been abandoned.

I'm surprised that a revision wasn't made to the RCW when the route was made discontinuous in 2004 (when part of the route in Tukwila was turned over to said city). Lest there's still an un-published plan to build this freeway?

Alps

Quote from: jakeroot on February 08, 2017, 07:39:28 PM
Was reading the SR-99 Wikipedia page, and I came to the bit where it talks about the history. There's a reference to the RCW where 99 is defined. Check it out:

Quote from: RCW RCW 47.17.160
A state highway to be known as state route number 99 is established as follows:
- Beginning at a junction with state route number 18 in the vicinity of Federal Way, thence northerly by way of Midway, to a junction with state route 518 in Tukwila; also
- Beginning at a junction with state route number 599 in the vicinity of Tukwila, thence northerly by way of Seattle, Edmonds, and Lynnwood to a junction with state route number 5 in Everett:
--> PROVIDED, That until state route number 509 is constructed and opened to traffic on an anticipated ultimate alignment from a junction with state route number 705 in Tacoma via the Port of Tacoma industrial area to a junction with state route number 18 in the vicinity of Federal Way that portion of state route number 99 between state route number 5 at Fife and state route number 18 in the vicinity of Federal Way shall remain on the state highway system.

The last part is the interesting bit. I'm not aware of any plans to complete the 509 to Hwy 18 in Federal Way. I can see from the map several posts up that, back in the 1970s, that was in fact the plan, but I think that plan has long since been abandoned.

I'm surprised that a revision wasn't made to the RCW when the route was made discontinuous in 2004 (when part of the route in Tukwila was turned over to said city). Lest there's still an un-published plan to build this freeway?
I thought it was never actually killed off to extend 509.

jakeroot

Quote from: Alps on February 09, 2017, 12:09:39 AM
I thought it was never actually killed off to extend 509.

The 509 is planned to be extended to I-5 near 516 at Des Moines, and a Spur Route is to be constructed to connect the 509 near the Port of Tacoma to the 167 east of Fife. But the RCW's definition describes a route (freeway?) that ascends from sea level near the Port of Tacoma, up through Federal Way to Hwy 18. I'm not aware of any plans even remotely resembling a route like that. Like I said before, the only real reference to this route seems to be those Regional Council maps from the 60s and 70s which, in the case of the above map, simply show an orange line running from present-day Hwy 18 towards downtown Tacoma via the former 509 route, which ran directly through the port, before being rebuilt as a freeway in the 90s south of the port proper.

Building such a route is still possible, but Federal Way has grown substantially since the 60s, and I suspect any new freeway would require the demolition of a substantial number of homes.

FWIW, I'm taking Bruce's map above to be a literal representation of the possible route, give or a take a few modern-day differences (such as the 509 running south of the Port instead of through it these days).

jakeroot

Was out doing my thang the other day, and I stumbled upon this four way stop in Seattle. Unlike most four-way stops, this is with a trail (specifically the Burke Gilman Trail (BGT) at NE 65 St). Never seen anything like this before.

While I don't necessarily agree with everything that Seattle's chief traffic engineer Dongho Chang has done (removing corner signals along 2nd Ave mostly), this is actually pretty cool. A Hawk signal could have worked here, but signals and trails don't always mix well, because people are spread out, which means that the Hawk would always be activated, or alternatively, it wouldn't be and you'd get a lot of people just crossing against their signal. I don't expect traffic along NE 65 St to grow anytime soon, so I suppose this setup will work for a while. But I'm a staunch critic of four way stops in general, and would prefer to see less of them.

https://twitter.com/jakeroot/status/832109863425626112

compdude787

Bad idea. Four way stops are terrible. They should have put in a crosswalk traffic signal like what they have on NE 125th St and 25th Ave NE.

jakeroot

Quote from: compdude787 on February 16, 2017, 02:03:08 AM
Bad idea. Four way stops are terrible. They should have put in a crosswalk traffic signal like what they have on NE 125th St and 25th Ave NE.

RYG pedestrian signals often have poor compliance rates. My guess is that the area is quiet enough that a four way stop isn't detrimental to traffic flow, plus it keeps trail users from being tempted to cross against a red signal (because there isn't one). I just wish they'd install a "four way" plaque below each stop sign.

To be plain, I also don't like four way stops. They can be debunked almost every time they're installed. This is one of only a very few that I think work fine.

Henry

Never cared much for four-way stops; too confusing as to who should get the right-of-way when there are cars from all directions of travel. I like it better when only one street has a set of stop signs and the other has a free-flowing (no stopping) setup through the intersection.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

kkt

Most days there's more traffic along the trail than there is on the street.  Overall volume is low enough that the 4-way stop doesn't create much delay.  The 4-way stop was put in pretty recently, and it was a spot where there significant number of accidents before.

jakeroot

Attn: Link Light Rail not likely to run along US-99 between Angle Lake and Federal Way (according to today's Tacoma News Tribune).


sparker

Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2017, 01:00:31 PM
Attn: Link Light Rail not likely to run along US-99 between Angle Lake and Federal Way (according to today's Tacoma News Tribune).



Any way a link to the article itself could be supplied? -- would like to see the (supplied) reasoning behind the I-5 alignment choice.

jakeroot

Quote from: sparker on February 18, 2017, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2017, 01:00:31 PM
Attn: Link Light Rail not likely to run along US-99 between Angle Lake and Federal Way (according to today's Tacoma News Tribune).

http://i.imgur.com/GuMrN16.jpg

Any way a link to the article itself could be supplied? -- would like to see the (supplied) reasoning behind the I-5 alignment choice.

Here you go:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/traffic/article133022569.html



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.