AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Author Topic: US 2 (Hewitt Avenue) Trestle  (Read 5400 times)

Bruce

  • [citation needed]
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5597
  • Stuck on I-5

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:09:43 AM
    • Wikipedia
US 2 (Hewitt Avenue) Trestle
« on: September 17, 2020, 03:18:08 AM »

Might as well start a separate topic for this project, since it will be a pretty major one if it gets funded (either in a state package or with tolls).

WSDOT has published two concepts for the westbound trestle replacement (heading towards Everett) as part of a community survey: https://engage.wsdot.wa.gov/us-2-westbound-trestle/

Option 1 is a four-lane trestle with one HOV lane, Option 2 is three general purpose lanes with a short HOV bypass for traffic using the I-5 SB offramp

Option 1 also includes a new pathway to directly connect WB traffic to Hewitt Avenue instead of linking to the Maple/California intersection as it does currently.





Neither concept actually fixes the very tight turn from WB US 2 to NB I-5, not to mention the mess of a merge/weave in the area. So there's that.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2020, 09:32:00 PM by Bickendan »
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12895
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 08:11:55 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: US 2 (Hewitt Avenue) Trestle
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2020, 09:44:52 AM »

At first blush (I have some limited experience with Everett, having been through the Naval Station there a handful of times but none since 2008), I would opt for a hybrid of the two...have a 4-lane trestle with a dedicated managed lane like Option 1, but retain the existing connections to the local grid like Option 2.  I don't see a huge benefit to a direct tie-in to westbound Hewitt Ave, especially since any such tie-in would impact eastbound operations from Hewitt to eastbound 2.  Not doing the direct tie-in would also cut down on ROW needs, which are already going to be existant just to replace the westbound trestle.

From what I can see/tell, improving the curve from WB 2 to NB 5 is theoretically doable, but would require two things:  relocating the NB on-ramp from Everett Ave, and probably adding ROW by taking out that first building on the south side of Everett Ave (what Google labels as "PRLifting").  The amount of earth movement to relocate the on-ramp from Everett would also add to the cost.

(EDIT):  Going through the survey, they seem to place more emphasis than I'd expect on a bike/ped path on any potential trestle replacement.  I find that odd considering that the eastbound trestle has one.  Also noticed that the survey is geared pretty much exclusively for those who live east of the river and travel across the trestle...not really any way for others to provide comment.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2020, 09:52:00 AM by froggie »
Logged

stevashe

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 396
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: February 22, 2024, 07:30:14 PM
Re: US 2 (Hewitt Avenue) Trestle
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2020, 12:48:11 PM »

At first blush (I have some limited experience with Everett, having been through the Naval Station there a handful of times but none since 2008), I would opt for a hybrid of the two...have a 4-lane trestle with a dedicated managed lane like Option 1, but retain the existing connections to the local grid like Option 2.  I don't see a huge benefit to a direct tie-in to westbound Hewitt Ave, especially since any such tie-in would impact eastbound operations from Hewitt to eastbound 2.  Not doing the direct tie-in would also cut down on ROW needs, which are already going to be existant just to replace the westbound trestle.

I think the hybrid option you propose could be a good choice. I think there could be some benefit from realigning the Everett off-ramp from California to Hewitt though seeing as most traffic is making the jog to Hewitt anyway and that would save them having to turn left and travel a block down Maple to get there. It would definitely have an impact on traffic turning onto US 2 from Hewitt though, since it's currently a free left. I could see it improving things at the Hewitt/Maple intersection though since there would be less conflicting traffic from Maple if the WB ramp isn't dumping the traffic onto it.

Quote from: froggie
(EDIT):  Going through the survey, they seem to place more emphasis than I'd expect on a bike/ped path on any potential trestle replacement.  I find that odd considering that the eastbound trestle has one.  Also noticed that the survey is geared pretty much exclusively for those who live east of the river and travel across the trestle...not really any way for others to provide comment.

The path on the eastbound trestle doesn't go all the way across (it turns off to the right and dumps onto a surface street just across the Snohomish river channel) so a path along the full length of a replacement westbound trestle would certainly provide more utility. As for the survey, the trestle really only back up during the morning commute, it's fine at other times (I drove it at various times of day during my internship with Snohomish County in 2017), so residents travelling into WB in the morning would have the most at stake in a potential replacement.
Logged

TEG24601

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 987
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Whidbey Island, WA
  • Last Login: February 23, 2024, 10:58:58 AM
    • Tegianzone
Re: US 2 (Hewitt Avenue) Trestle
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2020, 06:55:56 PM »

4-Lanes would be a minimum.  Ideally, there should be a reversible HOV lane to help with eastbound traffic, as the eastbound trestle was under built.  If they were smart, they would could actually do the 3-lane project and plan space for commuter rail, using it initially as a BRT route.


Of course, I would still prefer connecting US 2 to SR 526 and extending US 2 all the way to US 101.  Seems much better for the traffic patterns, and better separates local traffic from longer-range traffic.
Logged
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.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15865
  • 日本標準時

  • Age: 28
  • Location: Uruma-shi, Japan
  • Last Login: February 25, 2024, 07:57:26 PM
    • Flickr
Re: US 2 (Hewitt Avenue) Trestle
« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2020, 04:28:03 AM »

I've been hearing of this proposal, so it's nice to see some concepts.

I would prefer a four-lane alternative with a twist:

lane 1: HOV/Bus (w/ meter bypass for southbound 5 on-ramp) with a new left exit onto westbound Hewitt Ave (for buses destined for Everett Station)
lane 2: GP exit to southbound 5
lane 3: GP exit to southbound 5/California/Walnut/northbound 5
lane 4: GP exit to northbound 5

Lanes 2 and 3 may need to be placed on the right side of that support column, and a new two-lane overpass built adjacent to the existing single-lane overpass above Hewitt Ave where it merges onto southbound 5. The two adjacent carriageways would merge together immediately after the overpass, but stay separate up to that point to reduce weaving; the existing overpass would become HOV/bus, and the new overpass a double-lane meter. Weaving protection isn't normally necessary, but the existing infrastructure makes this just as easily said as done.

The capacity-limiting effects of the tight curve onto northbound 5 could be alleviated with a second lane. This is the situation eastbound on 16 as it merges onto northbound 5 in Tacoma. The turn is very sharp (even after reconstruction), but a second lane allows slower vehicles to stick to a single lane, and regular cars to use another lane to "keep moving" (so to speak).

BUT, I don't know much about this area. I'm just going by the assumption that, like other city center freeway interchanges (WA-509 @ I-705, Interstate 90 @ I-5 to an extent), "most" traffic is actually turning onto the freeway; city-bound traffic is relatively non-intrusive assuming light timing allows relatively constant flow into the city. With this in mind, I reduced Everett-bound lanes to just one, itself shared with exits to both northbound and southbound 5. If this is a bad idea, someone speak up!

As a side-note: if we are to start fixing tight corners, northbound 5 to westbound 518 in Tukwila needs to be fixed ahead of any others. How that ramp even got off the drawing board is beyond me (although the whole interchange is crap, to be fair),
« Last Edit: October 01, 2020, 04:46:02 AM by jakeroot »
Logged

Bruce

  • [citation needed]
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5597
  • Stuck on I-5

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:09:43 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: US 2 (Hewitt Avenue) Trestle
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2020, 09:18:58 PM »

The main flow is indeed between I-5 and US 2, with very little going into the city center (in part because of the awkward stair-step directions). I think your proposed layout could work, though trying to have two GP lanes merge onto I-5 would be a challenge even with a meter.
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15865
  • 日本標準時

  • Age: 28
  • Location: Uruma-shi, Japan
  • Last Login: February 25, 2024, 07:57:26 PM
    • Flickr
Re: US 2 (Hewitt Avenue) Trestle
« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2020, 11:01:19 PM »

The main flow is indeed between I-5 and US 2, with very little going into the city center (in part because of the awkward stair-step directions). I think your proposed layout could work, though trying to have two GP lanes merge onto I-5 would be a challenge even with a meter.

With that in mind, perhaps rebuild that overpass above Hewitt. Or maybe make the southbound 5 movement from lane 3 be allowed only during meter hours. Similar ramps, such as eastbound 18 to northbound 5 in Federal Way, have a merge that is only about 150 feet long (but it works because the other lane is stopped). That would make it so the new on-ramp would only have one extra lane merging, instead of two constant lanes merging (assuming the bus/HOV lane becomes the new add-lane, and the GP lanes merge into it).

The fact that it becomes an add-lane going south is very helpful when considering the possibility of adding more lanes to the on-ramp. The southbound on-ramp from Pac Ave takes about a thousand feet to go from three lanes to one lane, with a double lane meter and HOV bypass. Based on this, a traditional meter (two constantly useable lanes that are either metered or not) for US-2 would have to be about due-east from the southern edge of Judd & Black Park. Bridge modifications may not need to be made to I-5, but reconstructing the overpass above Hewitt basically becomes a must.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2020, 11:04:17 PM by jakeroot »
Logged

I94RoadRunner

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 245
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Mounds View, MN
  • Last Login: February 07, 2024, 07:43:18 PM
Re: US 2 (Hewitt Avenue) Trestle
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2022, 12:31:40 AM »

I have often thought that maybe it is best to nuke the entire trestle and build a whole new 8 lane trestle between I-5 and SR 204. And while they are at it, widen the Snohomish bypass to 4 lanes already and continue to Monroe!!
Logged
Chris Kalina

“The easiest solution to fixing the I-238 problem is to redefine I-580 as I-38

Bruce

  • [citation needed]
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5597
  • Stuck on I-5

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:09:43 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: US 2 (Hewitt Avenue) Trestle
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2022, 10:03:41 PM »

I have often thought that maybe it is best to nuke the entire trestle and build a whole new 8 lane trestle between I-5 and SR 204. And while they are at it, widen the Snohomish bypass to 4 lanes already and continue to Monroe!!

The eastbound trestle is only 20 years old and built to current seismic standards. Once the westbound trestle has capacity to match, I don't think another rebuild is warranted. There's not enough funding to go around for marginally beneficial projects like those on the corridor.

I think Monroe would rather have 522 completed before any work on US 2.
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15865
  • 日本標準時

  • Age: 28
  • Location: Uruma-shi, Japan
  • Last Login: February 25, 2024, 07:57:26 PM
    • Flickr
Re: US 2 (Hewitt Avenue) Trestle
« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2022, 12:59:22 PM »

I think Monroe would rather have 522 completed before any work on US 2.

:eyebrow:

...

...

Welp, I am surprised/saddened to discover today, that the interchange at Paradise Lake Road is not funded for construction. I remember seeing concepts years ago, and just assuming, as with every project, WSDOT needed some time to complete ROW acquisition and other pre-construction project elements. And that explains why nothing has happened. Yet even when that is completed, there is no money for the actual interchange lol. I hope the state gets on that soon. I wouldn't say it's sorely needed, but just for safety's sake, it's an important highway. Seems like not that long ago, 522 was labelled some kind of "top 10 deadly highway" or something.

Bruce

  • [citation needed]
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5597
  • Stuck on I-5

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:09:43 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: US 2 (Hewitt Avenue) Trestle
« Reply #10 on: December 01, 2023, 11:26:21 PM »

The City of Everett is studying improvements to the I-5 / US 2 interchange. Survey and open house: https://i5us2study.participate.online/

Among the interchange concepts: closing the Walnut Street connection (a bad idea, it's really handy for getting to SR 529), braiding some ramps, or adding access from Pacific Avenue and to Everett Avenue from westbound US 2. Concept 13 looks like it's the most logical one of the bunch.
Logged

 


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.