News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Washington

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Bruce

The new bridge could be made a bit lower, since the original height (140 ft) was meant to allow for the tallest masts for a ship of the time (in the 1980s) at the insistence of Senator Magnuson, according to his biography. I've checked my own copy of the book and it matches what this article mentions.


jakeroot

Quote from: Bruce on April 16, 2020, 12:52:40 AM
The new bridge could be made a bit lower, since the original height (140 ft) was meant to allow for the tallest masts for a ship of the time (in the 1980s) at the insistence of Senator Magnuson, according to his biography. I've checked my own copy of the book and it matches what this article mentions.

Thanks for the link. I particularly like this line:

Quote
the bridge design was high enough to allow passage of "the highest mast conceivable for a ship at that time; higher than has ever been remotely needed".

:-D :-D Gotta love Magnuson!

I see the article mentions that it was too steep for rail or monorail transit. Were those, at some point, proposed to cross over the bridge?

Bruce

Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 01:51:52 AM
I see the article mentions that it was too steep for rail or monorail transit. Were those, at some point, proposed to cross over the bridge?

In the early 2000s plan (the Green Line), they wanted a single-track monorail on top of the bridge median.

jakeroot

Quote from: Bruce on April 16, 2020, 02:51:11 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 01:51:52 AM
I see the article mentions that it was too steep for rail or monorail transit. Were those, at some point, proposed to cross over the bridge?

In the early 2000s plan (the Green Line), they wanted a single-track monorail on top of the bridge median.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that giant project. Didn't realize the plan was to utilize the West Seattle Bridge.

Here's a video from Youtube showing a double-track simulation going over the bridge (jump to 1:55):

https://youtu.be/TUoqeRADp4Q?t=115

nexus73

Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 12:59:48 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 16, 2020, 02:51:11 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 01:51:52 AM
I see the article mentions that it was too steep for rail or monorail transit. Were those, at some point, proposed to cross over the bridge?

In the early 2000s plan (the Green Line), they wanted a single-track monorail on top of the bridge median.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that giant project. Didn't realize the plan was to utilize the West Seattle Bridge.

Here's a video from Youtube showing a double-track simulation going over the bridge (jump to 1:55):

https://youtu.be/TUoqeRADp4Q?t=115

If Shelbyville has a monorail, then Springfield wants one as well...LOL!

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

jakeroot

Quote from: nexus73 on April 16, 2020, 02:48:41 PM
If Shelbyville has a monorail, then Springfield wants one as well...LOL!

I grew up a huge Simpsons fan. My cousin still sings the Monorail song when we're in Seattle and he spots the Link train. I can't imagine how psyched he'd be if there were legit monorails flying around Seattle! At least beyond the current one.

kkt

Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 04:43:24 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on April 16, 2020, 02:48:41 PM
If Shelbyville has a monorail, then Springfield wants one as well...LOL!

I grew up a huge Simpsons fan. My cousin still sings the Monorail song when we're in Seattle and he spots the Link train. I can't imagine how psyched he'd be if there were legit monorails flying around Seattle! At least beyond the current one.

But the Link is not a monorail!  (Doh!)

jakeroot

Quote from: kkt on April 16, 2020, 05:29:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 04:43:24 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on April 16, 2020, 02:48:41 PM
If Shelbyville has a monorail, then Springfield wants one as well...LOL!

I grew up a huge Simpsons fan. My cousin still sings the Monorail song when we're in Seattle and he spots the Link train. I can't imagine how psyched he'd be if there were legit monorails flying around Seattle! At least beyond the current one.

But the Link is not a monorail!  (Doh!)

Well no, but it's a big white train with people on it, going up and down major corridors. Close enough for the uneducated :-D

ErmineNotyours

Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 12:06:29 AM
What I would like to know, is where along the current span the viaducts end, and the bridge begins. I can't imagine the entire span from 99 to Admiral Way, other than the bit over the Duwamish, would need replacing. But I don't know.


If you look you can spot the older sections of freeway and the new 1984 bridge.  It's not that old, and the age difference is still apparent.  (Slightly unrelated is this ramp stub.)

How to pay for it?  Easy, sell bonds to be paid off with tolls.  We've already shown a willingness to toll more lanes than we used to not long ago.  See if the state will go for a reduced Alaskan Way Tunnel toll for drivers that use both the bridge and the tunnel, to ease some of the burden.  The state won't pay off their tunnel bonds quickly if they don't have a West Seattle Bridge to feed traffic to it.

jakeroot

Quote from: ErmineNotyours on April 17, 2020, 12:04:49 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 12:06:29 AM
What I would like to know, is where along the current span the viaducts end, and the bridge begins. I can't imagine the entire span from 99 to Admiral Way, other than the bit over the Duwamish, would need replacing. But I don't know.

If you look you can spot the older sections of freeway and the new 1984 bridge.  It's not that old, and the age difference is still apparent.  (Slightly unrelated is this ramp stub.)

How to pay for it?  Easy, sell bonds to be paid off with tolls.  We've already shown a willingness to toll more lanes than we used to not long ago.  See if the state will go for a reduced Alaskan Way Tunnel toll for drivers that use both the bridge and the tunnel, to ease some of the burden.  The state won't pay off their tunnel bonds quickly if they don't have a West Seattle Bridge to feed traffic to it.

All my time looking at maps, and I never spotted that stub. Looks like it was the old off-ramp to Spokane Street? Before being realigned because of conflicting ramps, it seems.

I would think that a toll bridge is almost a certainty. With good luck, SDOT will be able to use WSDOT's tolling equipment. I'd really rather not go through the trouble of acquiring a separate decal or transponder just to use this bridge. Other states have figured it out; I'm not used to seeing Good to Go along anything except state highways, hence my curiosity. At any rate, you're right that it's in WSDOT's interest to ensure this bridge continues operating, to keep toll revenue rolling through (particularly when faced with drivers switching to other modes to avoid driving the five-mile detour). Perhaps this interest could extend to the route becoming a state highway?

Of course, there could be the possibility that the bridge could be up for federal replacement funds again. Maybe there's some insurance on the bridge? I assume there will be a lawsuit as well, against...well I'm not sure who just yet, but the city will certainly take legal action. The bridge clearly isn't lasting anywhere near the length of time that was originally promised, and its failure to reach that longevity was not the fault of the city.

I've seen a bunch of people talking about the uneven number of lanes going over the bridge. Was this a recent change? Old imagery online seems to suggest that it's been 4+3 lanes for a quite a while.

stevashe

Quote from: jakeroot on April 17, 2020, 12:25:12 AM

All my time looking at maps, and I never spotted that stub. Looks like it was the old off-ramp to Spokane Street? Before being realigned because of conflicting ramps, it seems.


To be fair, Jake, the stub was created relatively recently. This Street View shows that ramp still in use before the reconstruction of the Spokane St Viaduct east of SR 99 was completed. And even more recently, that ramp was still showing up on Google's map before I reported it and got it changed!

Not open again until at least 2022 though? Man that's going to be a traffic nightmare... I don't envy anyone living in West Seattle, that's for sure! Will probably avoid going on many trips over there myself as well...

Also, since we now know this will be a bit of a longer-term topic, might we want to spin this discussion off to its own thread?

TEG24601

While, yes, the current bridge is overkill in its height, the bridge it replaced was a draw bridge, and much like the Zilwaukee Bridge in MI, it was overkill, and shortly after it opened was no longer needed.  However, lowering it too much, would make the approach from West Seattle a little awkward.  Perhaps a slanted bridge would be best, that has a nice steady grade from the viaduct to West Seattle.


I can see this as a chance for WSDOT to take over and actually connect the Fontleroy Ferry Terminal by an actual state route, and we can actually call it the "West Seattle Freeway" again. :)


Then again, WSDOT can barely figure out how to replace and manage their own bridges at this point, or build replacements for some ancient bridges in the system that seriously need work, bypassing, or replacement.







They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

sparker

Quote from: TEG24601 on April 17, 2020, 01:23:36 PM
While, yes, the current bridge is overkill in its height, the bridge it replaced was a draw bridge, and much like the Zilwaukee Bridge in MI, it was overkill, and shortly after it opened was no longer needed.  However, lowering it too much, would make the approach from West Seattle a little awkward.  Perhaps a slanted bridge would be best, that has a nice steady grade from the viaduct to West Seattle.


I can see this as a chance for WSDOT to take over and actually connect the Fontleroy Ferry Terminal by an actual state route, and we can actually call it the "West Seattle Freeway" again. :)


Then again, WSDOT can barely figure out how to replace and manage their own bridges at this point, or build replacements for some ancient bridges in the system that seriously need work, bypassing, or replacement.









Actually, bringing Fauntleroy/Spokane St. viaduct into the state system from I-5 to the ferry terminal is simply formalizing what has been a reality for several decades.  Washington law stipulates that at least one end of a state ferry "route" connect to a land-based state highway.  Interestingly, the Fauntleroy ferry makes a stop at the north end of Vashon Island before heading west to Southworth over on the Olympic peninsula, where it segues onto WA 160.  I guess this means that the state considers the entire route of the ferry to be the "route" in question rather than just the leg to Vashon, which doesn't include a signed state highway.  But it's likely WDOT, like most state highway agencies, would rather relinquish city street mileage than adopt more (although they've done both in the Seattle area in the past couple of decades -- i.e., shedding most of 513 and adding 523).  But if it would get a new (and hopefully improved) West Seattle bridge completed sooner than later, tolls or not, ceding the route to WDOT, probably as an extension of WA 160, might be something to be considered. 

Several years back before my West Seattle friends made the move up to Anacortes, I had the occasion to use Fauntleroy frequently; their home was in the Gatewood area overlooking the intersection of Fauntleroy and California.  I was struck by the physical similarity of that street to a number of CA state highways occupying city streets -- particularly the old jointed concrete center lanes flanked by asphalt outer ones, obviously added later in a facility expansion.  And that configuration ended at the approach to the ferry terminal, indicating that the function of the original road was to connect the terminal to central Seattle.  Sometime later during my tenure in grad school in Portland, I had occasion to contact WDOT at their Olympia HQ regarding some research I was undertaking.  I slipped in a question about Fauntleroy and the state system; the answer was that they had considered taking Fauntleroy and the bridge continuum into the state system on more than one occasion, but they never could come to an agreement with the city of Seattle regarding a number of details like channeling; signal timing, and the like -- so it never happened.  Apparently the original construction in the late '30's was a joint state/city effort, but WDOT never formally brought the street into the system.  With the issues with the bridge and the expense of a replacement, maybe it's finally time!

Bruce

The Times summarized a few of the mitigation ideas floating around for West Seattle: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/everything-has-to-be-on-the-table-getting-around-without-the-west-seattle-bridge/

I think the addition of more water taxis and buses (with dedicated lanes) is the most realistic option. There's also been word that the lower bridge might be closed if the high bridge structure poses a risk to it, which would make the situation even worse.

jakeroot

I think SDOT may want to reconsider the single-lane stretch of southbound Marginal outside the tribal center. While driving southbound last weekend, traffic spread to two lanes, but then had to merge back over about 1/3 of a mile later; it currently goes 2 lanes > 1 lane > 2 lanes > 1 lane > 2 lanes, which is incredibly confusing and absurdly awkward. There was even one point where a left turn lane was so poorly marked, one driver started driving in the oncoming lane thinking that they had entered a through lane (because the road widened and they thought a second lane had formed).

These "bugs" will be worked out in good time, but I think there's some steps that could be taken to improve the situation:

* Normalize the number of southbound lanes along Marginal. There can only be one southbound lane beneath the low bridge because of a width restriction, but widen it two lanes after that until Highland Park or keep it as one lane until after the tribal center.
* Chelan and West Marginal should become a continuous through movement, with an advanced green arrow for West Marginal towards the low bridge to accommodate trucks from industrial sites to the south along West Marginal destined for the low bridge.
* Modify the left turn phasing for southbound Marginal at Highland Park to protected/permissive (northbound W Marginal is heavy being the main route from the bridge, and the southbound left is heavy as traffic turns towards the First Ave South Bridge). Seattle has precedence for this kind of phasing, and visibility is excellent; alternatively, institute lagging phasing for the left turns if it must remain protected.

SDOT's plan to work on channelization, bus queue jumps, and repaving are all well-advised and I'm glad they're accomplishing those tasks. Truthfully, for as annoying as the detour is, there should be enough capacity (with slight modifications) in the area to reduce jams and keep the detour length to a minimum. With any luck, there should be fewer cars overall with hopefully higher transit usage and higher rates of teleworking. That interchange at the First Ave South Bridge should be able to easily handle the number of cars that will at some point be asked of it. The trick will be the weaving once traffic enters the northbound bridge.

Bruce

Right on queue: the lower bridge could close if the situation on the high bridge worsens.

https://twitter.com/MikeLindblom/status/1252419569316069381

jakeroot

Quote from: Bruce on April 20, 2020, 10:46:08 PM
Right on queue

Bus signals on your mind? :-D




Pretty terrifying to think the cracks could get bad enough to warrant the closure of the lower span.

This situation is going from bad to real bad way faster than I would have imagined.

Bruce

Quote from: jakeroot on April 20, 2020, 11:16:09 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 20, 2020, 10:46:08 PM
Right on queue

Bus signals on your mind? :-D

Indeed, we need a million queue jumps in West Seattle. That's my cue to push more transit.

Bruce

Temporary signage is up at the Marginal/Delridge/Chelan/Spokane intersection, which also got some fresh asphalt and paint.

https://twitter.com/seattledot/status/1254847810241024003

jakeroot

#819
Thank you for sharing a tweet that didn't involve Sesame Street color references. I saw the tweet earlier thanks to Mike Lindblom.

I'm really confused about what they did. It seems they've modified the signals so that...

* westbound is LT + THRU/RT
* eastbound is LT + THRU + THRU + BUS + RT

...effectively removing a through westbound lane purely so they could add protected-only left turns (from their own lanes) onto the lower bridge and Chelan Ave. Doing so eliminated the left westbound through lane (used to be a shared left/straight lane), forcing all traffic into the right lane. Westbound traffic was already piling into one lane early on because of a merge after the intersection, but traffic would have spread out over time as drivers became more familiar with the intersection. Now, if a driver makes the mistake of using the left lane along West Marginal for too long, they'll end up getting to a point where they can't turn left because they're not a truck or bus, but can't go straight either because there's only one through lane. That's not good design at all. At least with regular lanes that become right or left turns, drivers can make the turns and turn around. Not possible here.

Now, realistically, traffic should be pretty light for a while. But if that's the case, why so many drastic modifications? They could have easily fixed the current intersection by simply modifying the traffic signals to allow left turns on green. It would have been that simple. There were already two through lanes in each direction; the problem was the split-phasing, and that's an easy fix when there aren't double left turns. If visibility was an issue for eastbound left turns, simply eliminate that movement (those cars and trucks can go up the lower bridge and turn left at the signal right before the actual bridge).

I love SDOT (very "progressive" agency), but then they do stuff like this, and I'm sitting here wondering A) what they were smoking, but more importantly B) how in the hell they found the money to do all this, which long term won't be as effective as simply modifying the left turn phasing.

stevashe

Quote from: jakeroot on April 28, 2020, 04:51:12 AM
Thank you for sharing a tweet that didn't involve Sesame Street color references. I saw the tweet earlier thanks to Mike Lindblom.

I'm really confused about what they did. It seems they've modified the signals so that...

* westbound is LT + THRU/RT
* eastbound is LT + THRU + THRU + BUS + RT

...effectively removing a through westbound lane purely so they could add protected-only left turns (from their own lanes) onto the lower bridge and Chelan Ave. Doing so eliminated the left westbound through lane (used to be a shared left/straight lane), forcing all traffic into the right lane. Westbound traffic was already piling into one lane early on because of a merge after the intersection, but traffic would have spread out over time as drivers became more familiar with the intersection. Now, if a driver makes the mistake of using the left lane along West Marginal for too long, they'll end up getting to a point where they can't turn left because they're not a truck or bus, but can't go straight either because there's only one through lane. That's not good design at all. At least with regular lanes that become right or left turns, drivers can make the turns and turn around. Not possible here.

Now, realistically, traffic should be pretty light for a while. But if that's the case, why so many drastic modifications? They could have easily fixed the current intersection by simply modifying the traffic signals to allow left turns on green. It would have been that simple. There were already two through lanes in each direction; the problem was the split-phasing, and that's an easy fix when there aren't double left turns. If visibility was an issue for eastbound left turns, simply eliminate that movement (those cars and trucks can go up the lower bridge and turn left at the signal right before the actual bridge).

I love SDOT (very "progressive" agency), but then they do stuff like this, and I'm sitting here wondering A) what they were smoking, but more importantly B) how in the hell they found the money to do all this, which long term won't be as effective as simply modifying the left turn phasing.

I think you're forgetting about a leg of the 5-way intersection, Jake. The WB LT lane is meant mainly for traffic headed to Delridge, which seems to make tons of sense to me as I wouldn't expect that many trucks heading to Harbor Island to come from W Marginal anyway, and I'm sure SDOT put pre-COVID traffic volumes into analysis software to verify their design, you don't just go changing lanes willy-nilly. I actually helped with another lane-redo at Holden/SW 16th that added some left turn lanes which was already going to happen and had funding but got sped up due to the bridge closure, I wouldn't be surprised if a similar situation happened here.

See the drawing below for a more clear view of the new layout.


jakeroot

Quote from: stevashe on April 29, 2020, 02:09:49 AM
I think you're forgetting about a leg of the 5-way intersection, Jake. The WB LT lane is meant mainly for traffic headed to Delridge, which seems to make tons of sense to me as I wouldn't expect that many trucks heading to Harbor Island to come from W Marginal anyway, and I'm sure SDOT put pre-COVID traffic volumes into analysis software to verify their design, you don't just go changing lanes willy-nilly. I actually helped with another lane-redo at Holden/SW 16th that added some left turn lanes which was already going to happen and had funding but got sped up due to the bridge closure, I wouldn't be surprised if a similar situation happened here.

See the drawing below for a more clear view of the new layout.



You're right! I did forget about Delridge. That's exceedingly embarrassing, but what has been said, has been said. I've been to West Seattle more times in the last few weeks than I have in the years before, so I'm still getting used to things. Probably should have kept that in mind when I started offering proposals. :banghead:

I guess it would be a bit more unusual to allow permissive lefts from one street towards two different streets, although I don't think it would have been too unusual. I would still think my point applies a bit, minus the bit about getting stuck (since that left turn also allows movements towards Delridge). They've continued to allow two through lanes eastbound, likely because the left turn signal from that direction will reduce available green time for eastbound traffic.

I drew up my channelization plan (does not show signalization but through traffic would proceed simultaneously):


Bruce

Seattle is expanding its Healthy Streets program, which has temporarily blocked residential streets to thru traffic to allow for pedestrian/bicycle priority, into a permanent one. 20 miles with no-thru-traffic signs, and maybe some actual blockades later on.

Sorely needed, given how some of these neighborhoods lack large enough parks.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/seattle-will-permanently-close-20-miles-of-residential-streets-to-most-vehicle-traffic/

compdude787

Quote from: Bruce on May 07, 2020, 10:29:02 PM
Seattle is expanding its Healthy Streets program, which has temporarily blocked residential streets to thru traffic to allow for pedestrian/bicycle priority, into a permanent one. 20 miles with no-thru-traffic signs, and maybe some actual blockades later on.

Sorely needed, given how some of these neighborhoods lack large enough parks.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/seattle-will-permanently-close-20-miles-of-residential-streets-to-most-vehicle-traffic/

Some of the roads chosen are just ridiculous, including Lake Washington Blvd, which sees heavy traffic, and is one of the most scenic roads in the city. It's also one of my favorite roads in Seattle, and it's quite sad that they're considering closing this to thru traffic.

sparker

Quote from: compdude787 on May 08, 2020, 02:53:27 AM
Quote from: Bruce on May 07, 2020, 10:29:02 PM
Seattle is expanding its Healthy Streets program, which has temporarily blocked residential streets to thru traffic to allow for pedestrian/bicycle priority, into a permanent one. 20 miles with no-thru-traffic signs, and maybe some actual blockades later on.

Sorely needed, given how some of these neighborhoods lack large enough parks.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/seattle-will-permanently-close-20-miles-of-residential-streets-to-most-vehicle-traffic/

Some of the roads chosen are just ridiculous, including Lake Washington Blvd, which sees heavy traffic, and is one of the most scenic roads in the city. It's also one of my favorite roads in Seattle, and it's quite sad that they're considering closing this to thru traffic.

So how is the city intending to implement these closures, seeing as how residents will continue to be able to physically access their homes?  Doing it by signage/active enforcement only would entail a huge level of manpower; an alternative would be regular permanent barriers to render through traffic impossible -- essentially expanding on the old 1960's Berkeley "schematic", which shunted traffic so that through movements couldn't be made, largely through use of diagonal barriers at intersections.  Question -- were the residents along the affected streets made part of the decision chain, or was this a top-down policy-driven mandate?  If the residents -- or an overwhelming majority of them -- acceded to the plan, it may well be considered valid; if imposed from above by well-meaning officials absent local input, not so much!  Perhaps the traffic lull resultant from the COVID problem was too much of an opportunity to ignore.  It'll be interesting to see the overall public reaction once the policy is fully instituted!     



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.