Washington

[jakeroot]

[snip]

Northbound 167 to Northbound 405 in Renton;

[snip]

In my experience, the one in Tukwila and the one in Lakewood are activated everyday as part of the regular rush. I'm not 100% sure the one in Renton is active yet, but everything is there for it to be activated last I checked.

[snip]

I've seen the one in Renton activated when the signal was still hooded, and people followed it.  Now that its out in the open, I've never seen it turned on even when the entrance from Talbot Road is metered.

The 167 to north I-405 meter is now active.  https://mynorthwest.com/3055425/new-167-ramp-meter-merge-with-i405/

Neat, thanks for sharing.

Judging by current traffic cameras, either they aren't turned on, or everyone is mindlessly using only one lane...my guess is the latter.



I'm not a big fan of "shoulder use permitted when metered" as drivers don't seem to figure it out. The on-ramp from Mercer is a great example of an underutilized ramp meter shoulder. Also the on-ramp from Sunset Blvd in Renton.

[ErmineNotyours]

^ ^ ^
No, the radio was saying that the motorists weren't using both lanes this morning.  I've also seen the same problem on I-405 south from Bronson.  Which is fine; since nobody else uses the shoulder lane, I scoot into it and hardly have to wait at all.  The downside is that the shoulder lane is so rarely used that it's filled with debris.

[jakeroot]

Seattle's new Fairview Ave Bridge opened this past weekend. I took some photos today:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmWhP8oj

Here are some of my favorites. There are also some videos at that link that I can't post here without uploading to YouTube:


Looking south down Fairview Ave and the bridge by Jacob Root, on Flickr


Under the new bridge by Jacob Root, on Flickr


Bikes Merge Right by Jacob Root, on Flickr

[kkt]

Yay for the bridge reopening!

Nice photos, thanks for posting

[jakeroot]

Yay for the bridge reopening!

Nice photos, thanks for posting

Amazingly, the bypass along Aloha St seemed to work quite well. Still, for those on bikes or walking, it was a hilly detour, so it's great to have Fairview back open.

Thanks a bunch

[jakeroot]

Pardon me while I toot my on horn ...

For anyone interested in an update on construction in the South Sound, I made a ride-along video from Downtown Tacoma to Lacey, and then back.

Highlight of the video is the reconstructed bit of I-5 through the bases. I filmed this on 31 July. No music, no annotations. Just chapters and original sound (aka: road noise!)

https://youtu.be/5hmho4IuHL8

[Bruce]

Pardon me while I toot my on horn ...

For anyone interested in an update on construction in the South Sound, I made a ride-along video from Downtown Tacoma to Lacey, and then back.

Highlight of the video is the reconstructed bit of I-5 through the bases. I filmed this on 31 July. No music, no annotations. Just chapters and original sound (aka: road noise!)

https://youtu.be/5hmho4IuHL8

Nice video. I was recently near JBLM for the first time in a while and was surprised at some of the changes. It's still a mess, though.

[Bruce]

Four-week closure of the Montlake Bridge is beginning soon. Only pedestrians, cyclists, and ambulances will be allowed to cross while the steel decks are replaced.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/montlake-bridge-is-about-to-close-for-a-month-heres-how-to-navigate-the-detours/

[roadfro]

Seattle's new Fairview Ave Bridge opened this past weekend. I took some photos today:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmWhP8oj

Here are some of my favorites. There are also some videos at that link that I can't post here without uploading to YouTube:


Looking south down Fairview Ave and the bridge by Jacob Root, on Flickr

This is a neat sign, but it appears to be designed incorrectly for this point of application. The black cross suggests warning of a four-way vehicular intersection, but this appears to be a "T" intersection. Also, it depicts the cycle path to the left of the through road, but the path is clearly on the right. Looking through your other photos, it appears the installers may have mixed up the sign here with the one in the median for the opposing traffic. Doesn't address the issue with the cross street symbol, although that's something a little FYG reflective tape could fix in the interim. The warning sign in the median is also a little odd given it's technically past the intersection, and could maybe do with a left-facing arrow placard underneath (if it can't be moved to a point in advance of the intersection).

But other than this, overall, it looks like a fairly good multi-modal design scheme from what I can tell.

[jakeroot]

Nice video. I was recently near JBLM for the first time in a while and was surprised at some of the changes. It's still a mess, though.

Thanks!

I've driven through the area a few times to check it out and figure out what's good / not so good about the new setup: so far, I'm very impressed. Traffic seems to flow through the area much better than before. Like, significantly better. Before, on a Sunday evening or Friday evening, at least one of the directions would be backed up. Not so this past weekend, and even during the week things moved along nicely.

I definitely wouldn't call the current setup a mess. If anything, I think WSDOT knocked it out of the park. Once they get I-5 through South Tacoma rebuilt, and the interchange at 512 modified with some flyovers, there will be an incredible HOV corridor from JBLM to Seattle. Of course, that's a way's away.

[jakeroot]

Seattle's new Fairview Ave Bridge opened this past weekend. I took some photos today:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmWhP8oj

Here are some of my favorites. There are also some videos at that link that I can't post here without uploading to YouTube:


Looking south down Fairview Ave and the bridge by Jacob Root, on Flickr

This is a neat sign, but it appears to be designed incorrectly for this point of application. The black cross suggests warning of a four-way vehicular intersection, but this appears to be a "T" intersection. Also, it depicts the cycle path to the left of the through road, but the path is clearly on the right. Looking through your other photos, it appears the installers may have mixed up the sign here with the one in the median for the opposing traffic. Doesn't address the issue with the cross street symbol, although that's something a little FYG reflective tape could fix in the interim. The warning sign in the median is also a little odd given it's technically past the intersection, and could maybe do with a left-facing arrow placard underneath (if it can't be moved to a point in advance of the intersection).

But other than this, overall, it looks like a fairly good multi-modal design scheme from what I can tell.

I was also thinking that they may have inadvertently reversed which sign should have been placed in which location. If you check out the photos on Flickr, I do actually note as much in the descriptions. After riding my bike through a few times, it became pretty clear they just reversed the locations. Oh well.

I also agree on the imperfect design. It should not show a fourth leg. I don't know how this happened, frankly. But oddly, it seems that almost all of these signs across Seattle show a fourth leg. I cannot find any three-leg examples.

This example in North Seattle also shows a bike path on the wrong side, but the opposing sign is correct (showing on the left). So it would appear they may get this wrong more often than we realize!

The other point about poor placement (beyond the point where drivers need to actually take care to yield to the cycle path) is also well-spotted. I didn't consider this when I saw it in person. Moving the sign back to somewhere on the bridge may be better, but then installing a small "LEFT TURN YIELD TO CYCLE PATH" sign in the median may be better. Or at least more correct from a regulatory perspective.

[Bruce]

One of the worst ramps in Seattle (Rainier Ave SB to EB I-90) is finally getting a fix. Reduced to one lane at the crosswalk and widening out to 2 lanes with a metered shoulder.

https://twitter.com/wsdot_traffic/status/1426687579932463115

Having crossed this one more than a few times and never seeing anyone properly yield, it's a long time coming.

[jakeroot]

The crossing currently has RRFBs (and has for at least seven years), and those normally have very high compliance. It is rather odd that traffic wasn't yielding.

Looking at the setup, it seems that they could have at least painted yield lines (sharks teeth) leading up to the crosswalk.

[stevashe]

The crossing currently has RRFBs (and has for at least seven years), and those normally have very high compliance. It is rather odd that traffic wasn't yielding.

Looking at the setup, it seems that they could have at least painted yield lines (sharks teeth) leading up to the crosswalk.

I suspect the lack of yielding has to do with it being a freeway onramp. I don't know of many RRFBs being used at such locations, and I know I for one am usually thinking more about and focused on accelerating to freeway speed than looking out for pedestrians when turning onto an onramp. The changes should definitely help, though

[Bruce]

Came across something interesting while poking around some of the Hanford-area highways: the site itself has its own internal numbered highway system (as described in this technical report).

Highway 11A seems to be directly referencing the old Secondary State Highway 11A, which ran across the Hanford site until 1943; the rest of 11A became SR 24 in 1964.

These highways are even signed, using what looks to be a California spade. Or is it the USBR spade?

[sparker]

Came across something interesting while poking around some of the Hanford-area highways: the site itself has its own internal numbered highway system (as described in this technical report).

Highway 11A seems to be directly referencing the old Secondary State Highway 11A, which ran across the Hanford site until 1943; the rest of 11A became SR 24 in 1964.

These highways are even signed, using what looks to be a California spade. Or is it the USBR spade?

Definitely not a CA spade (at least for D4); they got the number location and kerning correct!

[myosh_tino]

These highways are even signed, using what looks to be a California spade. Or is it the USBR spade?

Definitely not a CA spade (at least for D4); they got the number location and kerning correct!

My first impression was that it *is* a California spade just without the CALIFORNIA banner arched across the top.

[sparker]

These highways are even signed, using what looks to be a California spade. Or is it the USBR spade?

Definitely not a CA spade (at least for D4); they got the number location and kerning correct!

My first impression was that it *is* a California spade just without the CALIFORNIA banner arched across the top.

There's a definite possibility that these were purchased Caltrans "spare" spade punches, although the green surface looks a bit washed out compared with new actual signage I've seen in the last year or so, which is about the brightest green so far during the reflectorized era.  But, still, kudos to whoever is placing the numbers on the shields; they could give most Caltrans districts lessons!  But.....thinking about it, the "washed-out" appearance may just be due to where these signs are located; they may have started out as pristine CA-spec "blanks"!

[Bruce]

They've been baking in the desert sun for at least a decade (if not longer), so a bit of discoloration is to be expected.

[Bruce]

Interesting that WSDOT's General State Highway Map for 2020 still shows plans for a Monroe bypass:

[Concrete Bob]

I'll admit I don't keep up with every essence of the Puget Sound's freeway planning like I do for municipalities in California, but the US 2 bypass of Monroe along with the extension of WA 522 to US 2 seem like a very logical, orderly wrap up of a basic freeway system northeast of the Seattle metro area.  Has there been very much vocal opposition to these plans, or are there simply just funding issues holding up these roads? 

[Bruce]

I'll admit I don't keep up with every essence of the Puget Sound's freeway planning like I do for municipalities in California, but the US 2 bypass of Monroe along with the extension of WA 522 to US 2 seem like a very logical, orderly wrap up of a basic freeway system northeast of the Seattle metro area.  Has there been very much vocal opposition to these plans, or are there simply just funding issues holding up these roads? 

Funding and being a fairly low priority even in its own corridor.

The bigger issue right now is replacing the westbound Hewitt Avenue Trestle (carrying US 2 between I-5 and SR 204), which is expected to cost $2 billion. SR 522 is also not a complete freeway, with one at-grade junction and several undivided sections that take higher priority.

And if the state were looking at cheaper project to relieve US 2 traffic, then doing something about the backups in Sultan and Gold Bar would score more political brownie points and actually would help. The Monroe section of US 2 is only a problem during the state fair or when a train breaks down. Otherwise it's way less of a problem than Sultan/Gold Bar.

Also, this bypass would only be a two-lane highway, maybe with a concrete barrier but otherwise not up to full freeway standards.

[jakeroot]

I don't recall hearing the bypass as being cancelled. I also don't remember it being kosher to show unbuilt roadways on those general maps, to be fair. Seeing as isn't cancelled, it would still make sense to show it on the map, right?

I would have thought that it was low priority, but WSDOT has invested quite heavily in the WA-522 corridor (new Maltby interchange, dualled section south from Monroe), and parts of the US-2 corridor as well (Bickford Ave interchange, new US-2 trestle, etc). Doesn't seem insane to construct the Monroe Bypass. The state owns most of the land, IIRC.

Gold Bar and Sultan bypasses are 100% necessary but perhaps more political and likely much more expensive.

[compdude787]

Interesting to see the Monroe Bypass showing up as proposed on Washington's highway map. I don't think I've seen that before. Maybe it will finally get built in the next few years.

I do agree that Sultan also really needs a bypass, given that the lights in the town cause traffic backups every Sunday afternoon in the summer that often extend well east of Gold Bar. The thing about a Sultan bypass is, where do you put it? You could either loop around the north part of the town, but since pretty much the entire town is located north of US 2, you'd have to make it go way out of the way as well as up and then down some hills. Or you could have it cross the Skykomish River and run on the south side of the river, which would be a more direct route, but it would have course require two bridges and would be in the floodplain of the Skykomish River. I think if WSDOT were to build a Sultan bypass, looping it around the north end of the town would probably be the most feasible.

What needs to happen with US 2 between Monroe and Gold Bar is that it needs to be four lanes. The stretch just east of Monroe carries 18,000 vehicles per day (probably more on weekends), which is easily enough to warrant a four lane road. I think there is enough space to do it without tearing down any buildings; the only place where it would be a bit tight is through Startup.

[Bruce]

Just about finished with another major research project: the full history of Interstate 182.

Also came across this image of a Temp I-182 sign in the Tri-City Herald from January 9, 1986:



Also a front-page article from August 9, 1986 about Kennewick's irritation at being left off as a control city: